curl-6 said:
AnthonyW86 said:
curl-6 said:
AnthonyW86 said:
Die foto's have been looked at countless times, and the specs given are actually the maximum possible and exceed what is possible with the given power draw. Even AMD newest R5 line has lower performance per watt figures, and those chips are considerably smaller(not even including the power draw of the eDRAM). Specifications like clock speed are confirmed.
|
The people discussing the die photos can't even agree on the specs. It's not an off the shelf part, and only Nintendo and AMD, and developers under NDA know what customizations may have been made. Given that the entire system is designed with a fetish for minimizing power draw, its very possible the GPU was redesigned to be as power-efficient as possible.
|
I agree and that's what i said in the earlier post, the modifications made were mostly to make it more energy efficient. They are not going to boost performance.
|
By being more power efficient, performance would no longer correlate with power draw in the same way as with a standard part.
|
I don't really get what you're aiming at here. You're saying the Wii-U's design is more efficient than even AMD's newest gpu's? Or that from any major chip company for that matter?
The chip is based on (older)AMD technology and considering the power draw the numbers given are the maximum possible. Sure they are calculated and not reported number by Nintendo, but If they deviate in any way from the actual numbers the real numbers could only end up lower. Nintendo can't defy the laws of physics. Based on the die photo's the core has an configuration of 320:16:8. Again if the numbers actually different they could only be lower, higher doesn't fit on the chip and would consume more power.
