I really don'y undersstand what nintendo was thinking, they knew they needed to make a console that can at the very least run 360/ps3 with out effort, to get more developers to make games for it, instead they chose to put there money into making a smaller, more effeciante console, a gpu that does 360/ps3 games at 1080p would have cost them 30$.

I really don'y undersstand what nintendo was thinking, they knew they needed to make a console that can at the very least run 360/ps3 with out effort, to get more developers to make games for it, instead they chose to put there money into making a smaller, more effeciante console, a gpu that does 360/ps3 games at 1080p would have cost them 30$.

It can run far better than XB360/PS3 when utilised correctly and not a quick port.

did you miss the part where i said with out effort. frankly it should'nt take much to run 360/ps3 ports, a 320 sp gpu runs 360/ps3 ports at 1080p or at a much higher framerate with out effort/optimization, its also a huge turn off for developers, they want to make the next best thing, and they love to make amazing graphics, you can't blame them for not being excited.

found further prrof that that article from william usher and bob peterson is telling the truth, you can give thanks to micro

https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~milom/cis371-Spring11/lectures/15_xbox.pdf

knowing this and that gpu is 500mhz, obviously you need 1024bits per macro to get the 256GB/s

4macros*1024bits*500mhz/(8bits*1000)=256GB/s

since wii u has 8 and is 7 years more modern, i bet its like 1 terabyte of bandwidth having like 2048bits per macro, of course that to prove this we have shinen comments, wii u edram only needs 16MB for 1080p framebuffer(double buffering) and 360 needs the whole 10MB of edram for 720p framebuffer, doing simple math you can get that wi u would only need 7MB for 720p frmabuffer, and thus each 7MB portion should give a bandwidth similar to the 256GB/s for ports to even work. Shien also commented that they use wii u edram not just for framebuffer but also for many other things, and what would be the purpose of having cpu and gpu sharing edram if the bandwidth and memory was just enough for framebuffer anyway?

here is an article in gn that proves that bandidth s necessary for framebuffer and thus that wii u cant have less han 563.2GB/s if you expect 1080p fr framebuffer

if you dont have 1024bits per macro you wont get the 256GB/s of bandidth in 360 edram

wiiu considering the old 1024bits design from 7 years ago
8macros*1024bits*550mhz/(8bits*1000)=563.2GB/s

since wii u is more modern the edram could actually be more than 563GB/s since shinen mentioend they can get 1080p with double buffering wih just 16MB of edram on wii u, while on 360 you need the whole bunch of 10MB for only the 720p, so obviously wii u edram may have like a terabyte of bandwidth for that, here is an article on ign about the imprptance of bandwidth for the framebuffer


http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-microsofts-xbox-360-vs-sonys-playstation-3?page=3
"

Bandwidth
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of
EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.

Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the
simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed
by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z
testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels
per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its
GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the
lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is
that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex
next-generation 3D scenes.

HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory
bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for
the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR,
and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still
have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures
and vertices.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers,
Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony
has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical
performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for
high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of
the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services.
Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful
hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging
cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the
PlayStation 3.
"

seriosuly, even gamcube had almost 1000 bits for the 3MB of edram and thats a nec technolog from 2000 at 180nm, why would 3MB o edram from the same vendor NEC at 40nm and for 32MB give you less than that?

people forget so soon gamecube had like 10,56GB/s for the 1MB of edram of 512bits at 165mhz

32macros*16bits*165mhz/(8bits*1000)= 10.56GB/s

the gamecube edram of 1MB for texture cahce was 512bits, and obviouly the 2MB of edram for frambuffer would have to give us something like 372bits for those 7.68GB/s, so we get like 884bits for the whole 3MB of edram which is near the 1000 bits

found further prrof that that article from william usher and bob peterson is telling the truth, you can give thanks to micro

https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~milom/cis371-Spring11/lectures/15_xbox.pdf

knowing this and that gpu is 500mhz, obviously you need 1024bits per macro to get the 256GB/s

4macros*1024bits*500mhz/(8bits*1000)=256GB/s

since wii u has 8 and is 7 years more modern, i bet its like 1 terabyte of bandwidth having like 2048bits per macro, of course that to prove this we have shinen comments, wii u edram only needs 16MB for 1080p framebuffer(double buffering) and 360 needs the whole 10MB of edram for 720p framebuffer, doing simple math you can get that wi u would only need 7MB for 720p frmabuffer, and thus each 7MB portion should give a bandwidth similar to the 256GB/s for ports to even work. Shien also commented that they use wii u edram not just for framebuffer but also for many other things, and what would be the purpose of having cpu and gpu sharing edram if the bandwidth and memory was just enough for framebuffer anyway?

here is an article in gn that proves that bandidth s necessary for framebuffer and thus that wii u cant have less han 563.2GB/s if you expect 1080p fr framebuffer

if you dont have 1024bits per macro you wont get the 256GB/s of bandidth in 360 edram

wiiu considering the old 1024bits design from 7 years ago
8macros*1024bits*550mhz/(8bits*1000)=563.2GB/s

since wii u is more modern the edram could actually be more than 563GB/s since shinen mentioend they can get 1080p with double buffering wih just 16MB of edram on wii u, while on 360 you need the whole bunch of 10MB for only the 720p, so obviously wii u edram may have like a terabyte of bandwidth for that, here is an article on ign about the imprptance of bandwidth for the framebuffer


http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-microsofts-xbox-360-vs-sonys-playstation-3?page=3
"

Bandwidth
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of
EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.

Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the
simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed
by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z
testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels
per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its
GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the
lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is
that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex
next-generation 3D scenes.

HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory
bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for
the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR,
and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still
have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures
and vertices.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers,
Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony
has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical
performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for
high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of
the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services.
Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful
hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging
cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the
PlayStation 3.
"

seriosuly, even gamcube had almost 1000 bits for the 3MB of edram and thats a nec technolog from 2000 at 180nm, why would 3MB o edram from the same vendor NEC at 40nm and for 32MB give you less than that?

people forget so soon gamecube had like 10,56GB/s for the 1MB of edram of 512bits at 165mhz

32macros*16bits*165mhz/(8bits*1000)= 10.56GB/s

the gamecube edram of 1MB for texture cahce was 512bits, and obviouly the 2MB of edram for frambuffer would have to give us something like 372bits for those 7.68GB/s, so we get like 884bits for the whole 3MB of edram which is near the 1000 bits