Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thia is NOT true at all.

GPGPU = useless and won't be used much next gen at all.

/Thread.

Nothing will happen.

Roma said: GPGPUs are the future of GPUs so all next gen consoles will use it or at least I think it is the future

You mean you're not sure what you're talking about?

Nobody else in this thread apart from Soleron does.

Everyone posting here is saying it will be good and not one you even knows why.

The reason you don't know why, is because it won't be used, if it would, you'd have heard HOW it will be used by now.

smoke mirrors, BULLSHIT! = GPGPU (in context of video games)

you have to account for the fact that GPUs are cheaper than CPU, so you decrease the power of the CPU for 1 GPU that is equivalent to the big and less efficient CPU.

^^ Well that was a post completely without value.

You need both to be relatively equal in terms of power. The Wii U CPU is without a doubt the bottleneck of that specific system. If the CPU can't feed your GPU fast enough than what's the point of having a GPU that is much more capable than it's CPU counterpart. GPGPU can help with this but then all you get are PS360 relative quality games in the long run. At the end of day, theres just no generational leap with the Wii U compared to the PS360. In fact, Nintendo made it harder for devs to push the system.

um

fillet said: Roma said: GPGPUs are the future of GPUs so all next gen consoles will use it or at least I think it is the future You mean you're not sure what you're talking about? Nobody else in this thread apart from Soleron does. Everyone posting here is saying it will be good and not one you even knows why. The reason you don't know why, is because it won't be used, if it would, you'd have heard HOW it will be used by now. smoke mirrors, BULLSHIT! = GPGPU (in context of video games)

that's why the "I think" part of the text is there

Roma said: fillet said: Roma said: GPGPUs are the future of GPUs so all next gen consoles will use it or at least I think it is the future You mean you're not sure what you're talking about? Nobody else in this thread apart from Soleron does. Everyone posting here is saying it will be good and not one you even knows why. The reason you don't know why, is because it won't be used, if it would, you'd have heard HOW it will be used by now. smoke mirrors, BULLSHIT! = GPGPU (in context of video games) that's why the "I think" part of the text is there

:)

Sorry mate, it wasn't really a dig at you. It's more about the misunderstanding and just how widespread it goes. Most people genuinely have been made to believe that "GPGPU" is some kind of secret weapon for offloading CPU intensive work, it really isn't.....for gaming at least. As Soleron has pointed out in a few posts and in a few different threads, it's for very specific kinds of CPU intensive tasks that can be run in parallel.

GPGPU is great for running simulations, hell it's used now in the most powerful super computer in the world for weather simulations consisting of thousands of nVidia Tesla GPUs, same architecure as the GTX680. But that's where it ends, it has very specific use - parallel computing, it's hard to program for and isn't for mainstream exploitation.

The only real use at the moment as far as gaming is concerned is for physics calculations, i.e eye candy or icing on the cake. It certainly won't open up doors to new types of games, new types of effects, it's basically limited to fancy destruction of buildings and that kind of thing. It's been used for years in PC gaming and all that's come of it is physics, nothing more, nothing less. It's possible to counter with an argument that the reason for this is because developers need a target that all users have, so making a game that integrally uses the GPGPU functions would mean the game wouldn't even work on non GPGPU graphics cards. This isn't true though, we're at a point where system requirements to play the top games are high enough to the point that the low-mid PC has been excluded for years already. GPGPU functions aren't a big part of DirectX - which says it all really.

If GPGPU is the wonder boy of modern gaming, and has been available for 5 years or so now on the PC, why haven't we seen a revolution in that area of gaming? Why are we still paying X hundred pounds/dollars for graphics cards when a crappy old low end card can do the same thing with GPGPU? The answer is because - It can't. GPUGPU is not the shining star people make it out as.

It won't be able to augment the poor GPU in the Wii-U, or the slow CPU in it either.

Think of the Wii-U as a console that makes a cake that looks fantastic on top with lots of nice icing but the actual content of the cake is basically fluff. I mean not insult by this, it's just technically how it is with a very poor anaology I'll admit :p

The Wii-U is in for one hell of a rocky ride once the next gen consoles come out, the ports will be dreadful at first, then they will simply stop coming altogether or be actual different versions of the game that the next gen consoles get. In exactly the same vein as the versions of games the PSP got Vs the Xbox 360/PS3. Of course this goes with the assumption that the next gen consoles will be a lot more powerful than the Wii-U. But consiering the Wii-U is arguably not even as powerful as the Xbox 360/PS3 that's a pretty darn fair assumption to make.

Things don't look good when you actually look at this from a technical perspective and take hope and benefit of the doubt out of the equation, what we know looks bad plain and simple.

GPGPU = nothing to see here.

Wii-U = going to get some top notch quality Nintendo 1st party titles and poor ports of next gen consoles for a year or so, followed by bad watered down versions that aren't ports, followed by 3rd parties dropping support.

That's the most likely outlook at the moment based on the information we currently have to hand. I know moderators frown upon slagging off a console with no merrit but I believe I've explained myself here well enough to say what I'm saying with reasoning.

This sounds like an "opinion", without meaning to sound up my own rear end, it isn't. It's just how it is more or less. I'm not that technically adept in these areas but I know a fair bit and taking this as just one person's opinion will lead you to disappointement.

Ask yourself this, how many times have gamers given the benefit of the doubt about a technology, only to be shown that their doubt was well founded. Time and time again people build up this "hope" for new technology that doesn't justify itself and realies on "belief" - Technology isn't about belief and hope, it's about numbers that can be counted.

This is one of those technologies. Let it go, move on and forget about GPGPU.

(except for getting excited about buildings coming crumbling down into millions of little pieces, if you like that sort of thing, then you're in for a treat. I expect it could be used by Ninendo for some quirky 1st party games, but it will only be gimmicky stuff, not integral gameplay stuff, it won't make stuff look great, it's about geometry and movement/physics, not how a game plays/massive worlds and so forth).