wait the top end 8 core 4.7 Ghz Power 7 chip used in the Watson supercomputer is in the Wii U? I think not

It's not even confirmed Power 7, I read the IBM press release and they only mentioned that the CPU used the same manufacturing technology...

It is a Power7 chip.  Likely binned to 4 cores and down clocked to 3.0 or 3.3 like the 750 series servers.

ah, silly me.

Well, yeah, it's obvious it wouldn't be the high-end one. But that's just to point out how basically the entire Power7 family is significantly more powerful than the 360.

I must respectfully disagree with you guys.  For example, take GOW3; the very first level specifically.  There are a couple of moments where the camera zooms in real close on Kratos, such as when he opens the door before fighting the Centaur or when he fits between the narrow rock space on his way to Gaia's heart.  These moments look phenominally smooth looking and beautiful; not a hint of shimmering or graphical flaws.  But the majority of the game where the camera is zoomed out and the entire background is visible, you can see a lot of flaws in the smoothness, with considerable shimmering, etc because the graphics are so detailed.

If you take a look at the Zelda demo in the following link, you notice that it features that previously mentioned smoothness with no slowdown, shimmering, or any graphical flaws whatsoever in the entire video... and prettier visuals to boot, IMO.  In a still picture, one may not see a big difference between GOW3 or U2 and Zelda HD, but in motion it becomes apparent to me.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/06/07/e3-2011-wii-u-zelda-hd-demo?objectid=110801

Now this is just a demo, but if this is truly indicative of what we'll see on screen during an actual game, I agree with Viper and Happy Squirrel that there is indeed a level of improvement with the Wii U.

I don't get why people are under this assumption that the Wii U will be only as powerful or slightly more than the PS360.. There was hardly any footage shown, and even the small amount there was shown was confirmed to be from PS360 anyway. Even if it does end up only slightly more powerful than PS3, games are the dealbreaker for me, not power

The internet is pure fail at times like these.


Think I'll be on my way until all this kiddy stuff blows over.

I think this thread is developing really nicely.

If anything, some of the contributions (especially of late) might change the momentum of this rumour-trend. Strange how some people are of the opinion that this thread is ''adding to the shitpile''. Seems to me to be doing quite the opposite.

Now this is the type of thing I like to hear

I know some people see it as 'bad' to give a lot of importance to graphics, but I want to be in a captivatingly beautiful Hyrule where the light bounces off the flowers and the grass and my sword reflects the whole world... How is that not a tantalizing prospect?

If Nintendo goes this route (which is obviously possible and perhaps even likely) then they will see me there at launch ready to fully embrace the next gen.

I agree, even using a low end Power7, Power 6 was launched in 2007 and Power7 in 2010, so XB360's Xenon can be at most a Power5.

So a CPU with one more core than the tri-core Xenon, clocked at the same frequency and two generations younger, and, last but not least, given a lot more main RAM and also L3 cache (that Xenon hasn't got) so being able to exploit a lot better its potential, should be A LOT more powerful.

Power architecture was designed from the start to be highly scalable from embedded controllers to high end CPUs for servers, workstations and even mainframes and supercomputers. Even the Cell contains a Power core (and other versions of Cell can contain as many as needed within both architectures' limits). It's an incredible architecture, luckily for us in very good shape, as alas another extremely good one, Alpha, is long dead after Intel, with money's pressure and a shameless bluff on Itanium real capabilities, lured Compaq into killing it.

By the way, when I said "four times more powerful", that was purely clock-speed and core-comparison calculations. Y'know, sheer brute-strength-type factors. Other things like a L1, L2, and L3 cache, available RAM, multithreading capabilities, and newer, more efficient technology are things I consider "strength efficiency" factors - the ability to UTILIZE that strength.

WiiU's Power7-based processor is going to be respectably more powerful than Xenon, but the trick is the efficiency of the processor. Ever since multicore processors came out, the advancements haven't been as much in the area of brute strength but in efficiency of the power that's already been around for a long time. So, the simple numbers don't explain things as well nowadays - it's the smaller details that are key. I mean, my computer has a 3.015GHz quad-core processor in it, but it's an older AMD Phenom II X4. An Intel Core i7 with the same number of cores but clocked at 2.8GHz is probably vastly more capable than mine, even if mine has more brute strength.

It's all the type of processor nowadays with CPUs - not simply clock-speed and core count.