Quantcast
If Zelda:BotW delay is going to happen, Wii U version will be cancelled.

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - If Zelda:BotW delay is going to happen, Wii U version will be cancelled.

bonzobanana said:

 

HD 4850 is a 1000 gflops gpu but wii u only has 176 gflops. Architecture may be similar but actual performance far less on wii u. Switch will be easily far superior even if the switch spec is at the lower end of expectations.

gflops has alot less to do with real world performance then people are expecting. Its a very, very theoretical based number.

 

According to this website its 352 gflops btw. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1903/wii-u-gpu and in terms of graphical performance the wii u is a pretty good match to current modern arm chipsets. 

 

Dont expect much better graphics from the switch. Like I said, its even very possible that the performance is lower when nintendo is going for an cheaper priece. Like the 3ds also has less performance then the wii.

 

But if you want to look at gflops performance in comparison, the 4650 is 320 gflops, so similar to the wii u.

It achieves 75 FPS in trex 1080p offscreen benchmark. Still very comparable to the 115 fps from the (always plugged in) shield console and its tegra x1. 

The Pixel c (tablet that uses tegra x1 - so not plugged in) achieves 80 FPS as comparison.



Around the Network
omgfk said:
bonzobanana said:

HD 4850 is a 1000 gflops gpu but wii u only has 176 gflops. Architecture may be similar but actual performance far less on wii u. Switch will be easily far superior even if the switch spec is at the lower end of expectations.

gflops has alot less to do with real world performance then people are expecting. Its a very, very theoretical based number.

 

According to this website its 352 gflops btw. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1903/wii-u-gpu and in terms of graphical performance the wii u is a pretty good match to current modern arm chipsets. 

 

Dont expect much better graphics from the switch. Like I said, its even very possible that the performance is lower when nintendo is going for an cheaper priece. Like the 3ds also has less performance then the wii.

 

But if you want to look at gflops performance in comparison, the 4650 is 320 gflops, so similar to the wii u.

It achieves 75 FPS in trex 1080p offscreen benchmark. Still very comparable to the 115 fps from the (always plugged in) shield console and its tegra x1. 

The Pixel c (tablet that uses tegra x1 - so not plugged in) achieves 80 FPS as comparison.

176 gflops is pretty much confirmed. There was a huge debate on it at neogaf and the 352 gflops camp were pretty much shot down in flames. Not only does the chipworks image support 176 gflops but the wii u simply isn't drawing enough power for 352 gflops. 

Most wii u games can't even match 360 or ps3 frame rates.  The main argument against 176 gflops seems to have been disbelief that Nintendo would go that low on the specification. The wii u development kit was at 352 gflops I believe but the final retail hardware was much less capable.

So 2-3x wii u performance is relatively easy for the Switch to do.



Cloudman said:
I suppose it's possible for the Wii U version to be canceled, but I just don't see it happening. It wouldn't make much sense to put that much work into it, only to drop it at the end of development.

I see it being a Twilight Princess route, where both versions will release, and for some reason the Wii U version will be worth more... maybe? It wouldn't matter anyways though, as the Wii U version will likely be available via digital anyways.

I hate to say it, but yes, it would make sense.

Launching it only on Switch would force every Zelda fan (and any gamer that wants to play the new Zelda), to buy their new console. And Nintendo needs to sell as many Switch consoles as they can.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:
Cloudman said:
I suppose it's possible for the Wii U version to be canceled, but I just don't see it happening. It wouldn't make much sense to put that much work into it, only to drop it at the end of development.

I see it being a Twilight Princess route, where both versions will release, and for some reason the Wii U version will be worth more... maybe? It wouldn't matter anyways though, as the Wii U version will likely be available via digital anyways.

I hate to say it, but yes, it would make sense.

Launching it only on Switch would force every Zelda fan (and any gamer that wants to play the new Zelda), to buy their new console. And Nintendo needs to sell as many Switch consoles as they can.

Forcing them to do something just doesn't make much sense to me. It'd only piss off the Wii U fanbase, and well, I don't really see it happening. They didn't force people to do the same with Twilight Princess.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

bonzobanana said:

176 gflops is pretty much confirmed. There was a huge debate on it at neogaf and the 352 gflops camp were pretty much shot down in flames. Not only does the chipworks image support 176 gflops but the wii u simply isn't drawing enough power for 352 gflops. 

Most wii u games can't even match 360 or ps3 frame rates.  The main argument against 176 gflops seems to have been disbelief that Nintendo would go that low on the specification. The wii u development kit was at 352 gflops I believe but the final retail hardware was much less capable.

So 2-3x wii u performance is relatively easy for the Switch to do.

Well the wii u do have significant better graphics then both ps3 and xbox 360 but the performance is not as good. Thats because the wii u´s cpu is alot weaker then both 7th gen counterparts. IMO 350 gflops is legit but i dont want to start a war about it, i may be wrong.

Here are some comparisons between wii u and ps3 to see the clear superioity in image quality/graphics. Framerate is worse though, like u said.

http://h13.abload.de/img/assassinscreediiiverg3heic.png

 

Look at the left orange balloon to see the differences in lightning and reflection between ps3 and wii u.

 

The Wii U is definitly not as weak as many are thinking. The CPU (out of order design) and GPGPU design just made ports run like shit. We will see how the switch will compare, but the switch will definitly be more of an 7th gen console in terms of performance then and 8th gen console. 

If they are going for the tegra x2 we might see some not as demanding ps4/xbox one games running in 720p or dynamic resolution (600-720p) on the system. But im not sure if thats what they are going for. The Pixel C (uses tegra x1) is ~500 bucks. It uses a way superior screen and a huge battery (nintendo will very likelay save money on both), but it doesnt come with an docking station and 2 joypads. So if they are realling goign fro a 250-300 bucks priece tag, it wouldt already be very hard with the x1.



Around the Network
Naum said:
God so many drama queens lately...always seeing the negatives...

It's seriously out of control.



omgfk said:
bonzobanana said:

176 gflops is pretty much confirmed. There was a huge debate on it at neogaf and the 352 gflops camp were pretty much shot down in flames. Not only does the chipworks image support 176 gflops but the wii u simply isn't drawing enough power for 352 gflops. 

Most wii u games can't even match 360 or ps3 frame rates.  The main argument against 176 gflops seems to have been disbelief that Nintendo would go that low on the specification. The wii u development kit was at 352 gflops I believe but the final retail hardware was much less capable.

So 2-3x wii u performance is relatively easy for the Switch to do.

Well the wii u do have significant better graphics then both ps3 and xbox 360 but the performance is not as good. Thats because the wii u´s cpu is alot weaker then both 7th gen counterparts. IMO 350 gflops is legit but i dont want to start a war about it, i may be wrong.

Here are some comparisons between wii u and ps3 to see the clear superioity in image quality/graphics. Framerate is worse though, like u said.

http://h13.abload.de/img/assassinscreediiiverg3heic.png

 

Look at the left orange balloon to see the differences in lightning and reflection between ps3 and wii u.

 

The Wii U is definitly not as weak as many are thinking. The CPU (out of order design) and GPGPU design just made ports run like shit. We will see how the switch will compare, but the switch will definitly be more of an 7th gen console in terms of performance then and 8th gen console. 

If they are going for the tegra x2 we might see some not as demanding ps4/xbox one games running in 720p or dynamic resolution (600-720p) on the system. But im not sure if thats what they are going for. The Pixel C (uses tegra x1) is ~500 bucks. It uses a way superior screen and a huge battery (nintendo will very likelay save money on both), but it doesnt come with an docking station and 2 joypads. So if they are realling goign fro a 250-300 bucks priece tag, it wouldt already be very hard with the x1.

To be honest the ps3 has its issues with ports some are good and some are bad. The 360 maintains superiority over wii u most of the time, the ps3 not so much, frame rates may be better but sometimes the graphics are worse. Some games actually run at lower resolution on wii u like sonic transformed and also have missing detail. One big plus for wii u is it almost always maintains vertical sync probably by virtue of its later gpu architecture. I have to say though as an owner of ps3, 360 and wii u when you see the ps3 firing on all cylinders its pretty incredible. 

However honestly if the wii u was 352 gflops and later architecture and with that 32MB of embedded memory it would clearly have far better superiority over the older consoles. 176 gflops and a weak cpu tallies up perfectly with its actual performance as well as its thermal dynamics, power draw and the actual image of its circuitry.

I feel quite resentful about how low Nintendo went with the wii u. They charged serious money for something that probably cost peanuts to make. No wonder even though the wii u has sold poorly they haven't made huge losses.



It wont be cancelled, the game is most likely complete on Wii U and the delay is possibly porting it to switch. BOTW is such an ambitious and expensive game that Nintendo need to make it to as wide an audience as possible. It makes sense making it available to Wii U owners as there is going to be an install base of around 14 million when said and done. What if Switch underperforms? Nintendo would rue not making it available to Wii U owners, I cant see that happening.



I'll say that right now, I'd buy both versions.
The Switch version is the one I'll play.
The Wii U version, I won't even take the plastic off. It'll be in mint condition and if I can even get it signed at a convention one of these days where someone like Reggie, Aonuma, or Miyamoto are in attendance, Oh My God in Heaven I'll make a fortune off of it!!!



Pancho A. Ovies

Nintendo Switch in Japan (Famitsu): 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=238945&page=2

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=239387

Maybe a digital only release for Wii U. They won't shut down the Wii U eShop anytime soon.