Mazty said:
Kasz216 said:
Mazty said:
I've never heard the term super computer be used "off brand" because using it wrong is like calling a cottage a mansion. Plus, as I've stated, the consoles weren't even close to being decent gaming PC's with the dates used - the comment was completely wrong no matter how liberally you look at it.
In short, if you expect the power of a gaming PC from 09 from the Wii U, you will be very, very dissapointed. It's going to be more like an OC'd 8800GT with an OC'd dual core circa 06 - not super in anyway and certainly not suitable for the price tag.
|
I've heard people refer to homes as mansions all the time when reffering to houses not classfied as mansions.
Also, outside the fact that consoles run better then pc's with similar hardware because of less restraints on the system because it's "dedicated".
I'd point out that he said "Let's say 09" as in he wasn't exactly sure on the date... making your complaints even more pedantic in nature.
If you want to argue the year is off sure... but the way in which you are doing it and trying to say he meant the kind of thing that's being used to crunch the physics of a black hole is well... extremely pedantic... and if you can't see how... I don't know what to tell you.
Additonally, care to post the average high end computer from 2009? I mean, like an ad advertising what the high end sold in stores is? So far you haven't actually backed anything up, but mention other parts that may or may not have been standard in a higher end computer at that time.
Seems like your intentionally argueing a completely different point.
Other people and sites seem to peg the GPU at 2009 like the Source did.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Wii-U-Seems-Too-Expensive-Specs-46908.html
|
Cottage...not house but moving on, 3 years is hardly being pedantic considering Moore's Law. If we are talking about, say, glacial movement, 3 years is being pedantic. If we are talking about where someone was on the night of a crime, minute-accuracy is critical so as time is relevant to whatever is in question, in this instance 3 years is significantly off the mark. By 2009 a high-end gaming machine (nvidia build) would be using a GTX 295 and an OC'd i7 with 16gb DDR3. Maybe a small OS SSD as well. No one buys high-end gaming PCs, or no serious gamer would, as it's much better to build them.
That '2009' GPU was an $100 GPU showing that it wasn't even an enthusiast GPU in 2009, and in fact it came out in '08. It was by no means a high-end gaming card - more like a budget card, and ATI were trailing behind Nvidia in that chip gen.
If the 6760 is being used, then the Wii U is going to be very much like a high-end gaming PC from 06. I imagine that if MS or Sony release anything next year, then those consoles may be far better value for money in terms of hardware. The Wii U is considerably weaker then my 18 month old GTX560 Ti, so to pay upwards of $300 for a lot less performance? Ouch, I'll take a rain check and see what 2013 holds.
|
And your saying HE is talking in stupid hyperbole.
If you want to talk years. The latest 6760 was released in 2011... and Moore's law hasn't applied for some time now.
And he said it was a $100 GPU NOW... that wasn't the price in 2009. He's using the price to tally up what the hardware for the Wii U costs to make today. So according to you on pricing... that makes it a budget/middle of the road card today. Exactly Source's point.
That you could make such a reading mistake and the $100 price point in 09 seemed credible to you makes me REALLY puts your knowledge on the subject in question.
As for paying more for less performace? That's every console ever when it comes to tech. Consoles always release with behind the edge processors and graphics cards. That's why if you actually care about shit like this it's PC or nothing.
They rely on low system reqs for OS and such. I mean hell, why do you think most consoles have about as much Ram as a computer from 2002.
