Wii U's eDRAM stronger than given credit?

[tanok]

starworld said:

tanok said:

you fell to realize that ps4 has problems with assesins creed 4 to do 1080p60fps and even posted from digital foundary and a video here

you fell to realize that a weaker system only can perform as good as the other powerful system only when the game is a ground up game not a port

you faell to realize that modern system doesnt do anything if the code of the ports tells the system to do stuff the way the other harwdare does things

 

seriosuly, its impossible, 176gflops cant do magic for ports, ps4 games prove it, ps4 is 7.5x more powerful than 360, more odern, has tremendous amount of fddr5 memory and still cant do 1080p60fps with games like assesins creed?

 

the answer is simpe,, these are quick ports, and if they affect ps4 so they affect wii u, wii u is not a magic box

well you can only name one launch port, most ports a showing huge upgrades, maybe ubi just didn't care for making it 60fps, and a developer told us the wiiu specs yet you don't wanna believe them, how do you know what a modern 176 gflops gpu is cabable of. yet 1 year later wiiu still run ports as well as ps3/360 and ps4 specs are not in question, sony has posted them for the whole world to see.

easy, because if even a more modern gpu like the ps4 has problems with ports, why the step behind gpu from wii u would not?

ps4 7.5x more powerful but cant do 1080p60fps when only requires about 2.5 to 3x more power than 360 to do it, and even worse was running at only 900p 30fps before ubi corrected it with a patch for the fans. This means that if the ps4 port from previous system was even gonna work at least would require 2x more power than the 360 eventhough being more powerful and modern, simple math. The same happens to wii u, ports so lazy require a more powerful system than the one you are porting from, in thought we learned that from previous generation

and as i told yopu, the wii u gpu die size is like 96mm2 taking off the edram and embedded things like the arm cores and dsp

redwood is 104mm2 and has 400stream cores,20tmus and 8 rops, and if i were to take a photo like chipworls the die size would be even less, already annadetech proved that with wii u, the actual die size of the redwood would be like 94mm2

 

cant you fit 94mm2 on 96mm2?

plus, wii u may have less than 20 tmus, like 16 tmes, which means more space for more stream cores, but we can leave it at 400 for now

 

numbers and the actual game examples dont lie, wii u isnt recieving any kind of special treatment, the ports are quick, they are not even ground up games to make it justice

 

you cant do magic with 176gigaflops on ports cause all the new stuff the wii u is capable of is nulled the moment you port

things like compute shaders and other stuff arent used cause you force the wii u do the stuff at the direcxt9 style instead of direcxt11 style, developers alrteady admited they dont take profit of compyte shaders for their quick ports, so you aint gonna get nothing with 176gigaflops when you play under those cirscunstances

 

come on, really, for a port to even run on wii u at 176gigaflops and with all those obstacles about not taking profit o the new stuff on wii u due to the port coming from an older system but more powerful, you are like asking to max out the wii u, are you suggesting that when wii u was launched it already was maxed out so thats why ports did work?

 

are you suggesting that developers have taking profit of the extra edram when most of them just price the main ram amount and shinen says that developers are lazy by not using the edram and caches?

 

are you saying that developers are using the compute shaders on thier early ports to make up for the weaker cpu when already at  report of digitak fooundary they admitted to not have done it?

 

sorry, but data points other way

so do the performance of the ports on all platforms and so does the die size of the wii u gpu