CPU: (neXtBox ~ PS4 >> Wii U)
| Wii U | Xbone |
PS4 |
| IBM PowerPC Type 750 |
AMD Fusion APU 4 Jaguar cores per cluster |
AMD Fusion APU 4 Jaguar cores per cluster |
|
Produced: 2012 |
Produced: 2013 Clock: 1.75GHz Cores: 8 (6 for gaming) L1 cache: 32+32 KB/core L2 cache: 2MB per cluster L3 cache: none Threads: 1/core |
Produced: 2013 Clock: 1.6GHz Cores: 8 (6 for gaming) L1 cache: 32+32 KB/core L2 cache: 2MB per cluster L3 cache: none Threads: 1/core |
With WiiU finally being torn down and evidently hacked, the CPU is clear now. It is an enhanced Wii CPU. The clock is about twice as fast PER CORE and it has THREE cores vs Wii's ONE core. Along with that comes 12-times the cache. As compared to what is likely in the other next gen systems... clearly it will be below them by a significant amount.
MSony are essentially going to provide the same CPU within their overall APU design. However, this will not mean they are identical as each company will have tweaked various other items related to memory, bandwidth, etc.
However in the end, it appears we'll see a MSony CPU that is basically the same while WiiU lags far behind. Considering we're approaching a point where the GPU will be doing nearly all the work, this may not be as big of an issue for WiiU as it suggests.
For CPUs we're looking at: XBox 360 * 1.5 = WiiU * 4 = neXtBox ~ PS4.
GPU: (PS4 > neXtBox >> Wii U)
| Wii U |
Xbone |
PS4 |
| AMD HD GPGPU - Custom design |
AMD HD7790 (approximation) "Southern Islands" technology |
AMD HD7870 (approximation) "Southern Islands" technology |
|
Produced: 2012 |
Produced: 2013 Memory: 64GB/s Clock core: 853MHz Clock Mem: 1GHz TFLOPS: 1.2 Pixel Fill Rate: ?? Texture Fill: ?? TDP: 75 to 100 (whole APU) Shaders: 768 |
Produced: 2013 Memory: 176GB/s Clock core: 800MHz Clock Mem: 1GHz TFLOPS: 1.84 Pixel Fill Rate: ?? Texture Fill: ?? TDP: 75 to 100 (whole APU) Shaders: 1152 |
Nintendo has gone with a 100% custom chip design in order for them to create their MCM solution with a strong focus on efficiency and backwards compatibility. The end result is a design that is not like any standard AMD GPU, making it difficult to analyze. It does contain fast eDRAM (32MB + 2MB) and SRAM (1MB). Statements support the idea that it will utilize the same DX11 type features and technologies as its competitors, but it will be hampered by a far slower GPU and memory bandwidth.
MS appears to be going with a slightly smaller GPU (as compared with Sony) along with a slower memory pipeline and some sort of "Move Engine" that is believed to assist its data transfer speeds within the APU. It will go with general DD3 RAM and compliment that with 32MB of eSRAM. Being a Microsoft product, it will be utilizing 11.x varient of DirectX.
Sony is going with a more traditional PC-like approach in that its matching the GPU with actual GDDR5 RAM vs general purpose DDR3 RAM. It has 18 compute units (CU) in its southern islands based GPU. Like WiiU, this will be support DX11 type features and technologies. [PS4 GPU: 1.84 TFLOPS, Engine Clock 800Mhz, 18 Compute Units (1152 Stream Processors), 72 Texture Units , 8GB GDDR5 with 176.0GB/s memory bandwidth (shared with CPU) ]
For GPUs we're looking at: XBox 360 * 1.5 = WiiU * 6 = neXtBox * 1.5 = PS4.
Memory: (PS4 > neXtBox >> Wii U)
| Wii U |
Xbone | PS4 |
|
2GB DDR3 34MB of eDRAM |
8GB DDR3 32MB of eSRAM |
8GB GDDR5 176GB/s 4.5GB reserved for games (+additional 512MB "flex") |
This means that Sony has a clear advantage in RAM due to speed even when including the benefits of embedded ram on WiiU/XOne's GPUs. XOne will be closest with similar overall storage capabilities but slower transfer rates while Wii U will be both far smaller and slower than both of its competitors. These differences are attempted to be included in the comparisons above for CPU/GPU.
Controls:
| WiiU | Xbone |
PS4 | |
| Main Controller(s) |
Gamepad
Wireless Pro Controller
|
Xbox One Controller
Kinect 2.0
|
Dual Shock 4
PS Eye
|
| Secondary |
All Wii controls
Tablet/Phone/Internet
|
SmartGlass
|
Vita
Move
Tablet/Phone/Internet
|
