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

Forums - Nintendo - Wii U specs are surprising, says Sonic developer, specifically the GPU and memory

Kynes on 27 August 2012
Baron said:
Kynes said:
Baron said:
Kynes said:
Baron said:
...

It has become clear to me you have little understanding of hardware and power profiles. The Wii had a 20 Watt TDP because its hardware is based on components developed in 2001 originally manufactured with a 180nm proces then downsized to 90nm for the Wii. Again, size =/= power profile.

I also never said the GPU in the Wii U is going to have a 50 Watt TDP. I only compared the difference in performance relative to TDP in just two years time by using the 2600 XT and the 4650 as an example. If the Wii U GPU really is manufactured with a 40nm process as rumors suggest then the 5570 with a TDP of 'only' 39 Watts is plenty to smash the performance of the 360's Xenos.

Your assumption seems to be based solely on the fact that the Wii U isn't much bigger than the Wii. Understandable but mistaken.

Until we know what kind of power profile Nintendo has in mind we can't say anything without them being baseless assumptions.

I don't know anything about hardware and power profiles. I've been reading silentpcreview since ~2005, Beyond3D since 2004, I've done overclocking with undervolting to my laptops, my studies are equivalent to an electrical engineering, and I work with hardware, but I know nothing of it.

I'm just saying that we shouldn't have unreasonable expectations of the power that a console with that aspect ratio could have. WiiU seems to be at most two times the volume of Wii, Nintendo shouldn't make a console with a power envelope higher than 50-60W with that aspect ratio, or we will have consoles that die due to thermal fatigue as X360 and PS3 suffered this gen.

I'm sure that Nintendo want a failure rate in the low single digit range, and putting >80W in a box of that size is looking for problems.


Why do you keep going on about how the size of the console is why it will not be very powerful. For someone who claims to know a great deal about hardware and power profile you're completely missing the point. The only problem the size brings is the limited size of the fans and smaller fans tend to generate more noise. That is it.

I say the real limiting factor will be price. Nintendo will not want to create a 400 dollar console. I can see something like the 5570 being the base of the Wii U's gpu. Cheap but substantially faster than either the Xenos or the RSX.


Nintendo isn't going to create a console with the noise of an 1U server. You have a small box, low noise profile... that implies very low power consumption.


And a 5570 doesn't need a lot of cooling as it has a low profile. There are even passive cooled versions of it. Yet it's about as fast as a 3870 which in turn is anything from 2 (DX9) to 4 (DX10) times more powerful than a 2600 XT.

Put that in a box at most the size of 2 Wiis and with a 4 cms fan, with all the other components. It fries itself.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 27 August 2012
phenom08 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
 


PS3 exclusives are far from overhyped. If you pay attention you know just as well as any that Sonys achilles heel is their marketing. Xbox 360 exclusives are the most hyped as far as commercialization in the west. Be my guest if you can show me a game that has had more air time than Halo and Gears this gen. Super Mario sold extremely well because it and Duck Hunt were bundled with the original SNES and continued to be bundled with the consoles. Eventually it stuck and could sell regardless of bundles or not. I dont know if they did but when Uncharted launched I never saw special edition PS3's with Uncharted, InFamous 2, GOW or anything like it during the launch of these games. Usually its a little after when they get their initial sales. Sonys exclusives are quality, you don't have to like them, but they are KNOWN for making quality titles that are highly rated and endorse high amounts of creativity. The only place Sony has fallen behind is in multiplayer experience. if you want to compete against Xbox exclusives which majorly depend on online gameplay Sony's exclusives must do the same on par with them. The only company STILL continuing to make great core and indy exclusives into 2014 without stopping is Sony. You don't have to like them...just deal with the existence of those truths.

How bout actually prove Sony's achilles heel is marketing lol. Excuses is all you have. But i love pointing out the flaws in your argument so here we go. First off you say Halo and Gears have alot of air time, which doesnt make a difference lol, you make it sound as if games need alot of air time to sell super well. Gears and Halo do have alot of air time (which you cant prove either) but Mario and Pokemon still outsell them so what exactly is Sony's excuse. Whats so different about Sony's marketing now compared to the past lol. Not much, its just you cant get over the fact that nobody wants their games. Its not a lack of marketing its a lack of appeal. Do some research, Sony bundles way more different games then Ninty, its just Sonys tend to fail. The rest of your post is just full of how much i love Sony so no need to even respond. "Sonys exclusives are quality, you don't have to like them, but they are KNOWN for making quality titles that are highly rated and endorse high amounts of creativity.""The only company STILL continuing to make great core and indy exclusives into 2014 without stopping is Sony. You don't have to like them...just deal with the existence of those truths."  Wow this is why you cant come up with good responses. You love Sony so much you dont want to see the truth of how they cant make a decent selling game to save their lives, just ask the Vita and its dire situation.


Your bias blinds you. Sony cant make a decent selling game? Of course they can. Most people don't even know about InFamous, Mod Nation Racers, Starhawk and the like. Most PS3 exclusives sell over an extended period of time. All the games you've ignored have sold more than decent which are over 1-7 million in copies including third parties which on both the 360 and PS3 are the highest. The smartest bundle Sony has ever used was in the creation of the Motorstorm bundle during the PS3 launch. New IP, new game....easiest way to endear people to your product. The problem is they should've started with Uncharted.



Cobretti2 on 27 August 2012
prayformojo said:
HappySqurriel said:
prayformojo said:


A casual game is defined, generally, as a game in which someone who doesn't play games can pick up, and play. Your grandmother could NOT pick up a 360 controller and play that game online. She'd be running around in the middle of a map in circles, shooting bullets at the sky and wondering what was going on.


The only thing that would stop a grandmother from playing Call of Duty (or the vast majority of modern first person shooters) is interest ... My 9 year old nephew regularly struggles for months to be successful in games like New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Galaxy, but can complete the typical FPS in (about) a week on normal difficulty. Modern FPS games are embarassingly easy compared to what they were in the late 90s.

Obviously, you haven't seen someone who's never held a controller before trying to play FPS games online. I have, and it's exactly as I described. They have no idea what they are doing, which buttons to push, which direction they are in and they usually die every 5 seconds because the other team/players are picking them off and laughing at their stupidity.

A casual game is a game where someone who's NEVER played a game can play it. Wii sports is a fine example. As much as we all love to hate COD, it's a core game. Just because something is popular, or easy for you and I to play, doesn't make it casual.


your definition is wrong

A casual game is a game where someone who's NEVER played a game can play it and a game where some core gamers struggle to play and loose against those who NEVER played a game.



 

 

Baron on 27 August 2012
Kynes said:
Baron said:
Kynes said:
Baron said:
Kynes said:
Baron said:
...

It has become clear to me you have little understanding of hardware and power profiles. The Wii had a 20 Watt TDP because its hardware is based on components developed in 2001 originally manufactured with a 180nm proces then downsized to 90nm for the Wii. Again, size =/= power profile.

I also never said the GPU in the Wii U is going to have a 50 Watt TDP. I only compared the difference in performance relative to TDP in just two years time by using the 2600 XT and the 4650 as an example. If the Wii U GPU really is manufactured with a 40nm process as rumors suggest then the 5570 with a TDP of 'only' 39 Watts is plenty to smash the performance of the 360's Xenos.

Your assumption seems to be based solely on the fact that the Wii U isn't much bigger than the Wii. Understandable but mistaken.

Until we know what kind of power profile Nintendo has in mind we can't say anything without them being baseless assumptions.

I don't know anything about hardware and power profiles. I've been reading silentpcreview since ~2005, Beyond3D since 2004, I've done overclocking with undervolting to my laptops, my studies are equivalent to an electrical engineering, and I work with hardware, but I know nothing of it.

I'm just saying that we shouldn't have unreasonable expectations of the power that a console with that aspect ratio could have. WiiU seems to be at most two times the volume of Wii, Nintendo shouldn't make a console with a power envelope higher than 50-60W with that aspect ratio, or we will have consoles that die due to thermal fatigue as X360 and PS3 suffered this gen.

I'm sure that Nintendo want a failure rate in the low single digit range, and putting >80W in a box of that size is looking for problems.


Why do you keep going on about how the size of the console is why it will not be very powerful. For someone who claims to know a great deal about hardware and power profile you're completely missing the point. The only problem the size brings is the limited size of the fans and smaller fans tend to generate more noise. That is it.

I say the real limiting factor will be price. Nintendo will not want to create a 400 dollar console. I can see something like the 5570 being the base of the Wii U's gpu. Cheap but substantially faster than either the Xenos or the RSX.


Nintendo isn't going to create a console with the noise of an 1U server. You have a small box, low noise profile... that implies very low power consumption.


And a 5570 doesn't need a lot of cooling as it has a low profile. There are even passive cooled versions of it. Yet it's about as fast as a 3870 which in turn is anything from 2 (DX9) to 4 (DX10) times more powerful than a 2600 XT.

Put that in a box at most the size of 2 Wiis and with a 4 cms fan, with all the other components. It fries itself.

No it doesn't. As I said, there are even passively cooled 5570's. Your assumptions are just that, assumptions.



prayformojo on 27 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
prayformojo said:
HappySqurriel said:
prayformojo said:


A casual game is defined, generally, as a game in which someone who doesn't play games can pick up, and play. Your grandmother could NOT pick up a 360 controller and play that game online. She'd be running around in the middle of a map in circles, shooting bullets at the sky and wondering what was going on.


The only thing that would stop a grandmother from playing Call of Duty (or the vast majority of modern first person shooters) is interest ... My 9 year old nephew regularly struggles for months to be successful in games like New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Galaxy, but can complete the typical FPS in (about) a week on normal difficulty. Modern FPS games are embarassingly easy compared to what they were in the late 90s.

Obviously, you haven't seen someone who's never held a controller before trying to play FPS games online. I have, and it's exactly as I described. They have no idea what they are doing, which buttons to push, which direction they are in and they usually die every 5 seconds because the other team/players are picking them off and laughing at their stupidity.

A casual game is a game where someone who's NEVER played a game can play it. Wii sports is a fine example. As much as we all love to hate COD, it's a core game. Just because something is popular, or easy for you and I to play, doesn't make it casual.


What you're talking about is a non-gamer ...

My sister, sister-in-law and niece would all be classified as casual gamers based on their game preferences and they have no difficulty playing my nephews in their FPS du jour. In fact, my sister wanted to increase her "geek-cred" so I lent her Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock (games I knew she would enjoy from a story telling perspective) and she had no difficulty completing the game.

Exactly. A casual game is a game in which a "non-gamer" can pick up and play. You take someone who's never played a game in their lives, stick a Wii mote in their hand and load up Wii Sports bowling and in minutes, they're playing with ease because it's THAT simple and intuitive. COD does not fit that description.



Around the Network
DieAppleDie on 27 August 2012

most games can be played as casual or hardcore
its not about the game but about how much time and effort you put in it



HappySqurriel on 27 August 2012
prayformojo said:
HappySqurriel said:
prayformojo said:
HappySqurriel said:
prayformojo said:


A casual game is defined, generally, as a game in which someone who doesn't play games can pick up, and play. Your grandmother could NOT pick up a 360 controller and play that game online. She'd be running around in the middle of a map in circles, shooting bullets at the sky and wondering what was going on.


The only thing that would stop a grandmother from playing Call of Duty (or the vast majority of modern first person shooters) is interest ... My 9 year old nephew regularly struggles for months to be successful in games like New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Galaxy, but can complete the typical FPS in (about) a week on normal difficulty. Modern FPS games are embarassingly easy compared to what they were in the late 90s.

Obviously, you haven't seen someone who's never held a controller before trying to play FPS games online. I have, and it's exactly as I described. They have no idea what they are doing, which buttons to push, which direction they are in and they usually die every 5 seconds because the other team/players are picking them off and laughing at their stupidity.

A casual game is a game where someone who's NEVER played a game can play it. Wii sports is a fine example. As much as we all love to hate COD, it's a core game. Just because something is popular, or easy for you and I to play, doesn't make it casual.


What you're talking about is a non-gamer ...

My sister, sister-in-law and niece would all be classified as casual gamers based on their game preferences and they have no difficulty playing my nephews in their FPS du jour. In fact, my sister wanted to increase her "geek-cred" so I lent her Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock (games I knew she would enjoy from a story telling perspective) and she had no difficulty completing the game.

Exactly. A casual game is a game in which a "non-gamer" can pick up and play. You take someone who's never played a game in their lives, stick a Wii mote in their hand and load up Wii Sports bowling and in minutes, they're playing with ease because it's THAT simple and intuitive. COD does not fit that description.

Yes, and Call of Duty can easily be picked up by someone who is a non-gamer ...

Halo is no less complicated than the vast majority of FPS game on the market and it became so popular because local lan games created a party atmosphere that encouraged a lot of non-gamers to play it. The much derided Frat-Boy gamer, a gamer who believes that Halo was the first FPS game and thinks Madden is the pinnacle of videogames, was born from this environment.

The challenge in the vast majority of "hardcore" games when played on Easy mode is to get killed ...

The typical "hardcore" gamer would give up in frustration if they played the average SNES game, or a PC FPS from the 90s, but somehow believe they're special because they can beat dumbed down games designed to appeal to the previous wave of "casual" gamers.



darkknightkryta on 27 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:

Yes, and Call of Duty can easily be picked up by someone who is a non-gamer ...

Halo is no less complicated than the vast majority of FPS game on the market and it became so popular because local lan games created a party atmosphere that encouraged a lot of non-gamers to play it. The much derided Frat-Boy gamer, a gamer who believes that Halo was the first FPS game and thinks Madden is the pinnacle of videogames, was born from this environment.

The challenge in the vast majority of "hardcore" games when played on Easy mode is to get killed ...

The typical "hardcore" gamer would give up in frustration if they played the average SNES game, or a PC FPS from the 90s, but somehow believe they're special because they can beat dumbed down games designed to appeal to the previous wave of "casual" gamers.

I know this is horribly off topic, but I recently watched James Rolfe (Angry Video Game Nerd) talk about his first time beating Contra.  He was a kid, did it in the morning before school and before eating breakfast.  His child self is better than 90% of the "Hardcore" gamers out there.



Viper1 on 27 August 2012
DieAppleDie said:
most games can be played as casual or hardcore
its not about the game but about how much time and effort you put in it

Quoting because this needs to be repeated.

 

Unfortuantely, the term casual gaming has had many definitions over the generations.  Back in the 6th generation and before, causal gamining simply meant gaming only occasionally.  Casual games under this definition included titles like Madden, GTA, Halo, etc...   This is because those titles tended to have a large audience that was composed of gamers that only gamed occasionally and many times that was the only game they played.

It has since come to have connotations of simplistic gameplay mechanics and minimal time effort required.  The irony being that this generations "casual gamers" would never play last generations "casual games".

 

However, DieAppleDie's definition is technically the correct one...regardless of the frequency with which the gaming media espouses the incorrect versions.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

oniyide on 28 August 2012
Viper1 said:
DieAppleDie said:
most games can be played as casual or hardcore
its not about the game but about how much time and effort you put in it

Quoting because this needs to be repeated.

 

Unfortuantely, the term casual gaming has had many definitions over the generations.  Back in the 6th generation and before, causal gamining simply meant gaming only occasionally.  Casual games under this definition included titles like Madden, GTA, Halo, etc...   This is because those titles tended to have a large audience that was composed of gamers that only gamed occasionally and many times that was the only game they played.

It has since come to have connotations of simplistic gameplay mechanics and minimal time effort required.  The irony being that this generations "casual gamers" would never play last generations "casual games".

 

However, DieAppleDie's definition is technically the correct one...regardless of the frequency with which the gaming media espouses the incorrect versions.

I second this