To be honest I don't feel the 3DS to be underpowered.
And no, I am not saying the Vita isn't a generation ahead, just that I am quite happy with 3DS' visuals.
Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
- Status
To be honest I don't feel the 3DS to be underpowered.
And no, I am not saying the Vita isn't a generation ahead, just that I am quite happy with 3DS' visuals.
french toast
Veteran
Don't be pedantic.. I was referring to their hardware strategy which carries the same theme whether it be a handheld or console...I have explained my point already, so I won't repeat my self.Yes, obviously handheld, battery powered devices power requirements are related to home console, powered by powerplug in your wall
french toast
Veteran
good for you, however the gpu and processing are more than 6 years old, it wasn't the best tech they could have had put it this way.
What hardware strategy are you referring to?
There's no "carrying theme" based on just 2 consoles, 1 from handhelds and 1 from home consoles.
french toast
Veteran
Look just read what I have said if you have missed it, its technically off topic although I guess it is related..
I've read your posts, and don't still see what this "carrying theme" is
Wii was underpowered, but GC before it wasn't
3DS can be seen a bit underpowered perhaps, but DS wasn't, was it?
And again, home consoles and handhelds are 2 completely different things.
french toast
Veteran
Ffs..the theme quite clearly to anyone with even a passing interest is an underpowered last gen hardware, with a special feature to sell the device, thus enabling the said device to be sold for a profit from the get go, this has been the theme since at least the ds..which compared to the psp certainly was underpowered, it's "special" feature was dual touch screens, which for its time was revolutionary.
The same for the wii for obvious reasons, the 3ds again followed this trend with arm 11 cpus and a pitiful open .gl es 1.1 gpu from several years ago...128mb other ram also doesn't help, again the selling point is the 3d screen, which wasn't quite a revolutionary by the time it was released as some phones sported the feature..at higher resolutions.
The wuu follows the theme closely, outdated cheap internal components that are good enough for the demographic..ie children, casual crowd...with a special feature..in this case another controller.
The theme is..cheap components that just about do the job, covered over by a a special feature that hopefully offers a new gaming experience...all for a profit.
Do you see now??
The same for the wii for obvious reasons, the 3ds again followed this trend with arm 11 cpus and a pitiful open .gl es 1.1 gpu from several years ago...128mb other ram also doesn't help, again the selling point is the 3d screen, which wasn't quite a revolutionary by the time it was released as some phones sported the feature..at higher resolutions.
The wuu follows the theme closely, outdated cheap internal components that are good enough for the demographic..ie children, casual crowd...with a special feature..in this case another controller.
The theme is..cheap components that just about do the job, covered over by a a special feature that hopefully offers a new gaming experience...all for a profit.
Do you see now??
The DS hardware was awful for the time, but at least it boasted a really long battery life even with 2 screens.
We will learn bit more about the Wii U after people began to teardown the hardware, though. The PICA200 in the 3DS apparently runs at 268Mhz according to this website. From the limited info we got about its performance, it has some efficient fixed-shaded features that even the Vita would have more trouble doing. Overall, it doesn't seem to be a bad choice for what Nintendo was going for, but we don't have alot of specifics.
As for the Wii 2.0 comments, you have to recall that the Wii was a slightly modified Gamecube in architecture, which means that its CPU/GPU architecture is from 1999/2000. We are still trying to get more details of Wii U's insides, but we know for sure that its CPU and GPU are not just modified current-gen chips.
Last edited by a moderator:
french toast
Veteran
Yes bit they will not be current gen either...especially in performance they will be 2005 standard, maybe slightly better in some areas alluding to some fixed function hardware.
Either way same strategy.
Either way same strategy.
Sigh, even Sony rep said that Wii U isn't current gen but "generation of it's own", and that's coming from their competitor.
Wii U at it's weakest is at 2005 consoles max level, Wii U's max level is far beyond the reach of 2005 consoles.
based on .....
AFAICS there is no evidence either way.
People will argue, what was shown at E3 wasn't better than current PS360 titles, others will counter with but that's without final devkits etc etc.
It's a waste of energy on both sides. Nintendo will never release specs, so the best you'll ever have is comparing versions of a product and reading way to much into developer quotes.
The big open question isn't can it compete with PS360, it's can it remain relevant after PS720 ships? and no one can answer that, the answer is far more complicated than hardware specs.
Wether they were better on par with PS360 at E3 is irrelevant, this is the console before it's even launched, at it's weakest, while PS360 are maxed out.
Check the difference from early PS360 games and newest PS360 games, the difference is huge, same will apply to Wii U, just like it has applied to all consoles out there as devs learn more and more how to better take advantage and at some point even exploit the system the ways it wasn't really meant to be used (PS3 & Cell used to beef up RSX on jobs meant for the GPU)
Wether it can be relevant when PS4/720 are out is completely another story, and not directly related to this particular part of the discussion.
It's not a fair comparison, the bulk of the improvement between early and late PS360 titles isn't because games are better at exploiting the hardware it's because different techniques are being used, and developers have a better handle on the production process.
WiiU get's the advantage of all of those techniques on day 1.
Not saying it's the best you will ever see, just that the comparison is flawed.
WiiU get's the advantage of all of those techniques on day 1.
Not saying it's the best you will ever see, just that the comparison is flawed.
forumaccount
Newcomer
Not to pile it on, but while the first part is maybe close to accurate, the second part is a huge huge assumption.
He was saying that from a marketing/strategy/timing perspective. I am sure some random Sony executive knows even less about Wii U hardware capabilities than we do.
It seems to me that there is something to be gained from a programmer optimizing for each specific system, other wise wouldn't both ps3 and 360 games look exactly on par from 3rd parties?
Same generation of hardware, and some would argue the ps3 was much powerful, yet you had ports that suffered.
Same generation of hardware, and some would argue the ps3 was much powerful, yet you had ports that suffered.
Although as this is the Wuu GPU guess-thread, eeking out estimations from PR comments and game showings is about all we have to go on.
And if performance is below a certain, immeasruable standard, it won't get the ports, just as Wii didn't this gen. I think that's why it's important for Nintendo to prove their console has legs and will take next-gen ports. Which isn't happening yet, but then we don't yet know what the next-gen level is going to be either.One other common factor I notced with this current gen was a number of people pre-release claiming there was secret, unheard of goodness in the consoles, like RSX's customisations making it more than just a 7800 (Super Companion Chip! Look at all that die space in RSX, must be PS2 emulation!), or Wii having a physics processing unit and goodness knows what. Even "the name Hollywood tells us there's more under the hood than just a 1.5x Flipper." Lots of excitement and hope and, at the end of the day, the boxes were far more prosaic. I'm unconvinced there'll ever be a secret, special sauce that won't be quite apparent from the early days. Things that have shown room for improvement beyond early showings have typically been gimped hardware or poopy tools, not so much improving from day one as being less restrictive.
Sure there are things to be gained, but as I said the "bulk" of the difference is production and technique, not platform level optimizations.
To be fair if a title plays to the strengths of a particular piece of hardware say fillrate on the 360, the other platforms will struggle. But you usually only see that in exclusives.
The bulk of the bad ports were early PS3 titles, because SPU programming was "hard", and RSX had issues with the geometry load from early 360 games. I just can't imagine Wii having anything comparable to that.
french toast
Veteran
Yes comparisons to early ps360 developments are non existant, the technology inside wuu is for all intents and purposes the same architecture as xbox360, of course some big differences but for the most part very very similar.
I can't see there being a massive learning curve like there was starting multi threading and such, programming for the cell must have been a nightmare, likewise with box 360s limited storage space, xenos was like nothing devs had seen before, Wuu gpu will be an evolution of xenos, maybe more advanced, but in the same ball park performance wise.
I can't see there being a massive learning curve like there was starting multi threading and such, programming for the cell must have been a nightmare, likewise with box 360s limited storage space, xenos was like nothing devs had seen before, Wuu gpu will be an evolution of xenos, maybe more advanced, but in the same ball park performance wise.
- Status
