There's more than enough power in an R700 to exceed the current consoles even when running a second screen.
Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
- Status
There's more than enough power in an R700 to exceed the current consoles even when running a second screen.
Yes but at what tdp?
That has nothing to do with the framerate being cut in half and most games don't display complex 3D scenes on the GamePad anyway - if both GamePads display maps or something, the performance impact will be negligible.
RV730 easily outperforms Xenos and RSX at less than 50W. That's a 55nm part, mind you - the Wii U GPU most certainly isn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Easily? How so?
For example the RV730 PRO uses 48 watts benchmark
4650 score 463 [RV 730 Pro] 48 Watts @ 55nm
X800 pro score 507 [ xenos] hard to find a good match
7800 gt score 518 [ RSx] is down clocked
If we step up to 60 tdp at 55nm we get.
RV730 XT score 568
Benchmark scores from: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
This sure doesn't leave a lot of power left for the CPU.
X800 isn't Xenos and 7800 isn't RSX, so I'm not sure what those benchmarks are supposed to tell us - not that Direct3D benchmarks could tell us much to begin with. I'm going by the GFLOPS figures as that's pretty much all we have to work with (Xenos: 240; RSX: a bit stronger on paper but generally considered weaker; RV730 PRO: 384). Then again, the Wii U GPU isn't an off-the-shelf R700 and it won't be a 55nm part.
Those card are the cards that were in the dev kits. RSx is the easy one because it is pretty much a off the shelf part.
So gflops is a better benchmark? I do not agree with that.
Like I said before it is impressive they match the correct console plus another screen in this small of console. Knowing the system will also be cheap.
So gflops is a better benchmark? I do not agree with that.
Like I said before it is impressive they match the correct console plus another screen in this small of console. Knowing the system will also be cheap.
Those benchmarks look a little strange. Regardless though the RV730 is undoubtably faster than Xenos. On paper and in it's weakest incarnation it has:
20% more pixel fill rate
140% more texture fill rate
20% more geometry setup capability
78% more shader throughput
And this is effectively from a more evolved and more advanced version of the Xenos architecture so those numbers are comparable and if anything, they understate the advantage RV730 would have.
The only disadvantage would be the memory bandwidth which is very low in RV730's slowest incarnation. That could explain the poor benchmark results but we can assume WiiU would use a different memory configuration anyway, i.e. not DDR3.
The eDRAM alone would make a huge difference. And Nintendo usually seems to prefer speed over capacity when it comes to memory, so GDDR5 wouldn't really surprise me all that much.
Blazkowicz
Legend
the 4650 runs on DDR2, not DDR3.
it's very good considering how much it's memory bandwith starved.
I can see nintendo using either 64bit 1GB gddr5 or 128bit 2GB ddr3. performance is the same, or even better for ddr3, cost wise I don't know but I prefer the latter possibility.
it's very good considering how much it's memory bandwith starved.
I can see nintendo using either 64bit 1GB gddr5 or 128bit 2GB ddr3. performance is the same, or even better for ddr3, cost wise I don't know but I prefer the latter possibility.
Yeah, I agree that it's probably DDR3, but with Nintendo, you never know.
french toast
Veteran
And density...
That's not true they have any different version. The 4650 can use either DDR2 or GDDR3 clocked at up to 700 MHz while the 4670 can use DDR2,DDR3,GDDR3, or GDDR4 clocked at up to 1100 MHz.
haha no way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we count the Wuu's performance as if the tablet doesn't exist relative to the current generation titles or do we count it as if it does exist? If the Wuu has a little of it's processing power being used to power a separate screen do we count the overall results of the performance dedicated to the main screen or do we also count the performance of the tablet as well when comparing the overall performance relative to the current generation?
bgassassin
Regular
Iwata said Wii U was currently having "50% of it's power" used. I posted the section he said that in a couple pages ago to go along with a post from Shifty. Man y'all got to start getting caught up on info before making these claims.
EDIT: Or stop with the selective reading.
The sig I believe you are referring to said Gamecube has/had all three.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1647866&postcount=1123
Nah it was about the wii. I still don't know where everyone thinks the game cube was some powerful system. We just had a thread about that here. Lol
As AlStrong pointed out, they most likely don't even need GDDR5 considering they have a rather big eDRAM pool. Still, never underestimate Nintendo when it comes to RAM. They were the first to use RDRAM back in the N64 days, Gamecube (and therefore Wii) used 1T-SRAM and eDRAM, and the 3DS turned out to be quite a surprise when it came to memory as well, with its (dual channel?) 268MHz FCRAM plus eDRAM.
bgassassin
Regular
Haha. Must be a spoof on Teasy's (I believe) sig.
Nope. It goes back to wii. Seems like we have the same threads with wiiu. Its scary how much they are alike.
Wii 2.0
- Status
