By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Wii U to be more powerful then the PS4

VGKing on 07 April 2012
Soundwave said:
VGKing said:
Soundwave said:
VGKing said:
Soundwave said:
VGKing said:
Soundwave said:

Honestly I think in the higher end market, Microsoft is going to drive Sony out in the next 5-6 years by creating a better piece of hardware, which in turn will make them the console of choice for "hardcore" players.

Sony can't afford to price match Microsoft anymore, and Microsoft knows this. A couple of years of losses upfront on the 720 and they can bury Sony for good. We're starting to hear some reports that seem to indicate MS is "going for it" at the urging of some developers (probably Epic and some others). So I could see a situation where the 720 has say 4GB of RAM + a beefier GPU versus a Sony Orbis that has 2GB RAM/weaker GPU.

Nintendo will retain a good portion of the lower end/"normal person" (lol) market, but MS will make inroads here too with Kinect.


Highly unlikely. Microsoft loves making profit. Want proof? There hasnt' been an Xbox 360 price cut since like 2008.

An Xbox 360 would easily bee sold at $150 with Microsoft still making decent profit. But why isn't it? Because Microsoft loves making profit. 


That's the 360 model -- to not have a ton of price drops but to absorb losses early on. The price remains static as time goes on, but of course the cost of production drops. The 720 could follow the same model ... Sony is the one that can't afford to repeat the PS3 model. Though in hindsight I think if MS knew Sony was going to shock everyone with the $599 thing, they probably would've started XBox 360 at a little bit more expensive of a price and not taken such a big loss upfront.

$299.99/$399.99 for the level of tech the 360 was bringing to the market (bleeding edge) in 2005 was a ridiculous bargain.

Microsoft can lose money on the 720 early on too, it's not a big deal for them, they likely view the 720 as a 7-8 year investment, so they lose money the first 2-3 years, but make it back in the final 5/6. Sony I don't think can afford to do that any more, Nintendo won't go there either. So it's a competetive advantage MS can use if they want to play that card.

As an entire company MS turns a hefty profit every year. Sony is swimming in debt and taking massive losses from every direction, they can't afford to price/feature match Microsoft any more. Sony has billions and billions of dollars in unpaid debt (so much so that their debt was recently downgraded, which is really, really bad).

If I'm Microsoft I'm looking at the game market and saying "why are we splitting half of our market with Sony? Lets take their share" this generation for sure.


Yes, Microsoft COULD launch a ridiculously over=powered console and price it chepaer than a less-powerful PS4....but they won't.

Microsoft WANTS to make profit. In the first few years they want to take as little a lost as possible.(or even profit from day 1). This is the way companies work. Anyway Sony WILL take a loss on each PS4 for at least hte first year. Their main competitor is the Xbox 720 and they have no intention of playing it safe.

BTW, if Sony were to leave the console business, it would be bad for the entire industry and it would also mean a lot more work for Microsoft.


I think you're confusing what you want with what Microsoft wants. Microsoft would love to rule the game industry.

It would be a nice feather in their cap especially after getting thumped badly by Apple in the media distribution race/tablet/cell phone market etc.

They can tell their stockholders "OK, ok, Apple, Apple, Apple, Google ... but hey look at what we're doing in the game business, look at Kinect, look at our dominance here ...". It's something they can point to especially if Windows Phone never takes off. It's kinda like when you got a report card with one subject that was a D and another was an A ... well you could always kinda assuage your parents by pointing out you're doing great in this one subject and maybe you'll even come around in that other subject.

If I'm Microsoft I bait Sony into fighting the race like this ... it's a race that favors Microsoft. Sony isn't the same company they used to be 10 years ago, their brand (Playstation and Sony in general) has diminished considerably. This is where smart corporations if they have a killer mentality go for the kill.

If I was working at MS I'd also push to secure exclusivity deals on certain key franchises. If Nintendo can take Monster Hunter away from Sony (and I don't for a second believe Nintendo wasn't involved in that), MS should go at Sony on the console side too.

Microsoft loves to pick fights they know they can win. Right now they're in tough with Apple and Google with the smart phone thing, they probably are too late in coming to the market. But Sony? In the game business? I mean if you're Microsoft you gotta be feeling pretty damn confident about that. Any profit the game division makes for Microsoft is just peanuts compared to their other businesses, always has been, always will be. XBOX as a brand is a vanity project for MS, something to get them into the living room first and foremost.


Microsoft can't make Sony drop out of the console business. You're just being a bit of a fanboy here.
Even if the Xbox 720 pulled off PS2-level success, a profitable PS4 could keep Sony in the console wars even it sold at Gamecube levels.(or do you think a PS4 won't sell at all?)


If the PS4 was to sell at GameCube levels, Sony would drop out. The reason Nintendo made a lot of money during those years was because they were selling tons (and I mean tons) of GBA + Pokemon craze was still at a high peak (meaning the movies/merchandising/etc. on top of the game franchise).

Sony has gone from 120 million to 60 million this gen and been toppled in North America pretty convicingly by MS. If I'm MS, sure why wouldn't I be licking me chops and wanting to slash Sony in half again?

I'm not saying that as a fanboy, just from a POV of a Microsoft executive, I'd look at the game industry and I'd look at the sorry state Sony is in right now and I'd say "why are we splitting half the core audience with ... them?". It's a fair question.

If MS can really turn the screws on Sony particularily in the first 2 years of the next console cycle, they could have very easy sailing for the following 5-6 years.

PS2 - 150m+(low estimate)
PS3 - 63m(so far) + PSP - 73m = 136m

Not as bad as it seems. One of the reasons PS3 sales are so low compared to PS2 is because Sony also had to sell a PSP and of coruse, competition from Microsoft. I say they handled it extremely well. Any other company would have been dominated by Microsoft and Nintendo(which are corporate giants). Example: Sega



Around the Network
VGKing on 07 April 2012
zero129 said:
VGKing said:
zero129 said:
zarx said:
first the source said that the PS4 had an integrated GPU on the CPU that will work together so technically you should probably be almost doubling those PS4 numbers.

Second the wii U has a r770 based GPU which is anything from the 4730-7870 with the 4730 being weaker than a single 6670 that is ignoring the advances in GPGPU and tessellation etc the newer architecture brings.

The Integrated GPU on the PS3 might not be cut/not even used. Also its a piece of crap and still wouldn't double it.

Alot of rumors state its the 4870 or close to it. and if you really think the 7670 would be good at tessellation etc you most be joking, its a low end card.

Like i said im just going by rumors, people are easy to believe the ones that says its going to be weaker then the PS3 and 360, this is just showing facts based on the rumors.

And the is no reason Nintendo would pick the weakest of the 4xxx Series GPU's, when they can go to the top of the 4xxx GPU's for cheap, unlike the 7xxx series.

1. Which rumors? I would love for you to provide a link since all the rumors I've seen only say R700 series. They don't mention any specific GPU.

2. Because the top of the 4xxx GPUs is more expensive than the other ones. Because the 4870 consumes 150watts which is way too much?

The original XBox 360 used 155watts while idle in the dashboard. 177 while playing Halo 3. Keep in mind these watts include the CPU and GPU and everything else in the system. 

The HD 4870 uses 150 watts BY ITSELF! Nintendo is definitely not using this in the Wii U unless they want high rate of failure and a noisy system.

1. The rumors say its based off the RV770 Only 2 GPU's ise the RV770 GPU thats the 4850 and the 4870. Sure the is also the RV770LE and that unit is based off the 4830, But since the rumors don't state the RV770LE and only state the RV770 we can assume its the 4850 or the 4870 GPU.

2. Nintendo would be able to get them cards very cheap, plus they wouldn't be off the shelf cards they would be custom made for the Wii U and more then likely made to use alot less power.

Now lets say Nintendo goes with the RV770 LE GPU

Radeon HD 4830 1GB vs Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB

 

Intro

The Radeon HD 4830 1GB has a core clock speed of 575 MHz and a GDDR4 memory frequency of 900 MHz. It also makes use of a 256-bit bus, and uses a 55 nm design. It features 640(128x5) SPUs, 32 TAUs, and 16 ROPs.

Compare all that to the Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB, which has a clock speed of 800 MHz and a GDDR5 memory speed of 1000 MHz. It also features a 128-bit bus, and uses a 40 nm design. It is comprised of 480 SPUs, 24 TAUs, and 8 ROPs.

(No game benchmarks for this combination yet.)

 

Power Usage and Theoretical Benchmarks

Power Consumption (Max TDP)

Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 63 Watts
Radeon HD 4830 1GB 95 Watts
  Difference: 32 Watts (51%)  

Memory Bandwidth

In theory, the Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB should be 11% faster than the Radeon HD 4830 1GB in general, due to its higher data rate. (explain)

Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 64000 MB/sec
Radeon HD 4830 1GB 57600 MB/sec
  Difference: 6400 (11%)  

Texel Rate

The Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB is a small bit (approximately 4%) faster with regards to AF than the Radeon HD 4830 1GB. (explain)

Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 19200 Mtexels/sec
Radeon HD 4830 1GB 18400 Mtexels/sec
  Difference: 800 (4%)  

Pixel Rate

The Radeon HD 4830 1GB is much (approximately 44%) more effective at FSAA than the Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB, and should be able to handle higher resolutions while still performing well. (explain)

Radeon HD 4830 1GB 9200 Mpixels/sec
Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 6400 Mpixels/sec
  Difference: 2800 (44%)  

Not much difference in the first 2 but a huge advantage of 44% in the Pixal Rate.

Now lets Compare the 4850 to the 6670

Radeon HD 4850 1GB vs Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB

 

Intro

The Radeon HD 4850 1GB features a core clock speed of 625 MHz and a GDDR4 memory frequency of 993 MHz. It also makes use of a 256-bit bus, and uses a 55 nm design. It is comprised of 800(160x5) SPUs, 40 Texture Address Units, and 16 Raster Operation Units.

Compare all that to the Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB, which makes use of a 40 nm design. ATi has set the core frequency at 800 MHz. The GDDR5 RAM is set to run at a frequency of 1000 MHz on this specific card. It features 480 SPUs as well as 24 Texture Address Units and 8 Rasterization Operator Units.

(No game benchmarks for this combination yet.)

 

Power Usage and Theoretical Benchmarks

Power Consumption (Max TDP)

Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 63 Watts
Radeon HD 4850 1GB 110 Watts
  Difference: 47 Watts (75%)  

Memory Bandwidth

The Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB should in theory be a little bit faster than the Radeon HD 4850 1GB in general. (explain)

Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 64000 MB/sec
Radeon HD 4850 1GB 63552 MB/sec
  Difference: 448 (1%)  

Texel Rate

The Radeon HD 4850 1GB will be a lot (approximately 30%) better at AF than the Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB. (explain)

Radeon HD 4850 1GB 25000 Mtexels/sec
Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 19200 Mtexels/sec
  Difference: 5800 (30%)  

Pixel Rate

The Radeon HD 4850 1GB will be a lot (more or less 56%) faster with regards to AA than the Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB, and also able to handle higher screen resolutions while still performing well. (explain)

Radeon HD 4850 1GB 10000 Mpixels/sec
Radeon HD 6670 (OEM) 1GB 6400 Mpixels/sec
  Difference: 3600 (56%)

As you can see the 4850 beats the 6670 no problem

So no matter what way you cut it, if the Rumors are true about the PS4 specs the is no way its going to blow the Wii U away. even if the Wii U uses the Low End GPU in the RV770 Family it is still going to be very close.  But thats only if all the rumors are true.


Watts still seem too high though. 4830 seems more likely since that could be modified to run at ~50 watts which I bet is the highest Nintendo would go. 

Keep in mind that any GPU Nintendo chooses would most likely be downgraded to run cooler and use less power. Sony would likely upgrade a GPU. So an updated 7670 would easily be match or beat a downgraded 4830.



VGKing on 07 April 2012
zero129 said:
VGKing said:
Roma said:
It won't be more powerful than Orbis nor Durango and it won't be less powerful than PS3 and 360


but there won't be that big of a gap as Wii was to PS360 it will be more like PS2 was to GC


Wii U will be about 360-level give or take.

PS4 will be 4-8 times as powerful as the 360. Easily.

So no, this won't be a repeate of 6th gen. It will be a repeat of 7th gen.

Not a chance, the Wii U will be alot more powerful then the 360 Judging from the Rumored specs, plus what "REAL" Devs have said. and if the Rumored specs of the PS4 and the Wii U are true they will both be very close.

Devs that speak publically HVE TO  say something good about the console. I"m pretty sure there is still an NDA about Wii U and they're not supposed to discuss it with the media. This is why we have anonymous devs saying its not as capable as a PS3/360.



HappySqurriel on 07 April 2012
VGKing said:

PS2 - 150m+(low estimate)
PS3 - 63m(so far) + PSP - 73m = 136m

Not as bad as it seems. One of the reasons PS3 sales are so low compared to PS2 is because Sony also had to sell a PSP and of coruse, competition from Microsoft. I say they handled it extremely well. Any other company would have been dominated by Microsoft and Nintendo(which are corporate giants). Example: Sega

I'm not sure I follow the logic ... Nintendo had to sell the Wii and DS at the same time and are a far smaller company than either Sony or Microsoft.

Sony went from being the market leader and having third party publisers, developers, journalists, analysts and retailers convinced that the PSP and PS3 would dominate the market to their current position primarily due to self-inflicted wounds. The unfortunate thing is this is a trait that seems fairly common throughout Sony, and for more than a decade they have been trying to tell consumers what they want rather than to listen to consumers tell them what they want; and this mentality can be used to explain how Sony lost the gaming market to Nintendo and Microsoft, and why Sony lost the portable music player market to Apple.



HappySqurriel on 07 April 2012
VGKing said:

Devs that speak publically HVE TO  say something good about the console. I"m pretty sure there is still an NDA about Wii U and they're not supposed to discuss it with the media. This is why we have anonymous devs saying its not as capable as a PS3/360.


As a general guideline to navigate all forms of news media throughout your life, when a "journalist" uses an anonymous source they're treating you like a mushroom; essentially, keeping you in the dark and feeding you bullshit. For the most part, named sources tend to accurate on what they tell you (within reason) and unnamed sources are generally inaccurate or biased.



Around the Network
SaviorX on 07 April 2012
VGKing said:


Watts still seem too high though. 4830 seems more likely since that could be modified to run at ~50 watts which I bet is the highest Nintendo would go. 

Keep in mind that any GPU Nintendo chooses would most likely be downgraded to run cooler and use less power. Sony would likely upgrade a GPU. So an updated 7670 would easily be match or beat a downgraded 4830.


Ok, so assuming the Wii U uses a modified 4730 at least... can you compare the bars with the Wii U & Wii?

Or the 360 vs 4730 architecture?



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

SaviorX on 07 April 2012
zero129 said:
SaviorX said:
VGKing said:
 


Watts still seem too high though. 4830 seems more likely since that could be modified to run at ~50 watts which I bet is the highest Nintendo would go. 

Keep in mind that any GPU Nintendo chooses would most likely be downgraded to run cooler and use less power. Sony would likely upgrade a GPU. So an updated 7670 would easily be match or beat a downgraded 4830.


Ok, so assuming the Wii U uses a modified 4730 at least... can you compare the bars with the Wii U & Wii?

Or the 360 vs 4730 architecture?

I'll see if i can do that for you. I'm not sure about the Wii as i don't know what AMD GPU that is based off but im sure i can for the 360 give me a sec :D

Edit ok i really can't find the GPU the 360 is based on to compare it on that site sorry :(


There are probably no visual bars available online to make a picture comparison, but here are the 360 GPU specs anyways:

  • 500 MHz parent GPU on 90 nm, 65 nm (since 2008) or 45nm (since 2010) TSMC process of total 232 million transistors
    • 48 floating-point vector processors for shader execution, divided in three dynamically scheduled SIMD groups of 16 processors each. [2]
      • Unified shading architecture (each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders)
      • 10 FP ops per vector processor per cycle (5 fused multiply-add)
      • Maximum vertex count: 6 billion vertices per second ( (48 shader vector processors × 2 ops per cycle × 500 MHz) / 8 vector ops per vertex) for simple transformed and lit polygons
      • Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second[2]
      • Maximum shader operations: 96 billion shader operations per second (3 shader pipelines × 16 processors × 4 ALUs × 500 MHz)
      • 240 GFLOPS
      • MEMEXPORT shader function
    • 16 texture filtering units (TF) and 16 texture addressing units (TA)
      • 16 filtered samples per clock
        • Maximum texel fillrate: 8 gigatexels per second (16 textures × 500 MHz)
      • 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock
    • Maximum Dot product operations: 24 billion per second
    • Support for a superset of DirectX 9.0c API DirectX Xbox 360, and Shader Model 3.0+
  • 500 MHz, 10 MiB daughter embedded DRAM (at 256GB/s) framebuffer on 65nm (since 2010 [4]).
    • NEC designed eDRAM die includes additional logic (192 parallel pixel processors) for color, alpha compositing, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing called “Intelligent Memory”, giving developers 4-sample anti-aliasing.
    • 105 million transistors [5]
    • 8 Render Output units
      • Maximum pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA), or 32 gigasamples using Z-only operation; 4 gigapixels per second without MSAA (8 ROPs × 500 MHz)
      • Maximum Z sample rate: 8 gigasamples per second (2 Z samples × 8 ROPs × 500 MHz), 32 gigasamples per second using 4X anti aliasing (2 Z samples × 8 ROPs × 4X AA × 500 MHz)[1]
      • Maximum anti-aliasing sample rate: 16 gigasamples per second (4 AA samples × 8 ROPs × 500 MHz)[1]


Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

SaviorX on 07 April 2012
zero129 said:

Ok i will try my best here lol xD (Im drunk atm) Since i cant find an exact picture graphics im going to base this off the closest card i could find to the Xenos GPU based on them specs the GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 (As you can see all specs are very close to the Xenos)

GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 vs Radeon HD 4830 1GB

 

Intro

The GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 comes with core clock speeds of 540 MHz on the GPU, and 700 MHz on the 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM. It features 32 SPUs as well as 16 Texture Address Units and 8 ROPs.

Compare those specs to the Radeon HD 4830 1GB, which has a GPU core clock speed of 575 MHz, and 1024 MB of GDDR4 memory set to run at 900 MHz through a 256-bit bus. It also is made up of 640(128x5) Stream Processors, 32 Texture Address Units, and 16 Raster Operation Units.

(No game benchmarks for this combination yet.)

 

Power Usage and Theoretical Benchmarks

Power Consumption (Max TDP)

GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 47 Watts
Radeon HD 4830 1GB 95 Watts
  Difference: 48 Watts (102%)  

Memory Bandwidth

The Radeon HD 4830 1GB should in theory perform much faster than the GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 overall. (explain)

Radeon HD 4830 1GB 57600 MB/sec
GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 22400 MB/sec
  Difference: 35200 (157%)  

Texel Rate

The Radeon HD 4830 1GB will be a lot (more or less 113%) more effective at AF than the GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3. (explain)

Radeon HD 4830 1GB 18400 Mtexels/sec
GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 8640 Mtexels/sec
  Difference: 9760 (113%)  

Pixel Rate

If using a high resolution is important to you, then the Radeon HD 4830 1GB is the winner, and very much so. (explain)

Radeon HD 4830 1GB 9200 Mpixels/sec
GeForce 8600 GT 512MB GDDR3 4320 Mpixels/sec
  Difference: 4880 (113%)  

As you can see the 4830 Destorys the Xenos (well the 8600Gt but they are pretty much the same except the 8600GT might be a bit more powerful then the Xenos i don't know as i never owned that card). Not by 50% as that would only be twice as powerful, but by over 100% in everything.

Judging from this id say the 4830 is 4 times the power of the Xenos GPU.

Maybe if i wasn't so drunk right now i could of prob done a better chart of my own. But i still think its a very fair chart as the specs of the Xenos and the 8600GT line up perfectly.

Wow, good stuff man.

Cheers!



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

Rafux on 10 April 2012
dr3b said:
Why don't we all just admit that we have no idea how strong the next gen consoles will be as there are not any solid specs for any of them....


How dare you trying to bring some reasonableness to this thread... I'm having so much fun reading it.



dr3b on 10 April 2012
Rafux said:
dr3b said:
Why don't we all just admit that we have no idea how strong the next gen consoles will be as there are not any solid specs for any of them....


How dare you trying to bring some reasonableness to this thread... I'm having so much fun reading it.


Ooops sorry.....