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

Forums - Nintendo - REAL official specs are here. Lets dissect !GPGPU! !2GB RAM!

crissindahouse on 14 September 2012
errorpwns said:
blkfish92 said:
errorpwns said:
blkfish92 said:
superchunk said:
blkfish92 said:
Hard drive space is garbage? Or am I missing something here?

HDD space fits your needs. For many, 8 or 32GBis fine. For digital downloaders like me, I'll spend $50 on a 1TB USB HDD and have way more space than I should ever need. OR for others... a 64GB SDHC SD card for $30 or so is perfect.

Basically, this is the perfect solution vs being forced to spend $50 to $100 more up front on the console when you may never need that space.


I guess it's good for the casual gamers, but for me I need A LOT more space. SO unless the downloadable games and patches are damn small, I"ll have to get another HDD

 

Well better than an xbox 360 where it cost 50 dollars for a refurbished hard drive at 120gb of space.  I can get a 120gb sata drive for 20 or so new.


Ya true.


Yeah, I was just pointing that out.  I absolutely am happy with the way Nintendo handled the HDD solution.  Instead of making the HDD a proprietary one or a hard to swap out one they stuck with an age old standard.  The USB HDD.  Which a lot of people seem to have one already.  I don't, but ill be sure to get one.  I think the 8-32GB inside was just to make sure people had room to store saved games and small gamefix patches if needed if they chose not to buy DLC or play games off their HDD.

you can buy a new 250gb hdd for 360 for $50 or 320gb for $58, just as info, no clue where some people buy their stuff to pay the same for a used product with half the space...

but i also like if you can use every hdd, it's still cheaper then but i still think there should be one console with at least 250gb or so, not so beautiful to have a hdd on your console in your living room which will be needed for me.



Around the Network
Chris Hu on 14 September 2012
ethomaz said:
The rumors about RAM is confirmed... 1GB for game.

I think is fine... a little over twice the current gen (360 have ~485MB and PS3 ~475MB).

I expected more of course but it's fine.


I think it could have had more RAM also but I'm impressed by the low power consumption.



H.E.R. on 14 September 2012

Don't really care about the storage space. My Wii U will have 1 TB.



errorpwns on 14 September 2012
crissindahouse said:
errorpwns said:
blkfish92 said:
errorpwns said:
blkfish92 said:
superchunk said:
blkfish92 said:
Hard drive space is garbage? Or am I missing something here?

HDD space fits your needs. For many, 8 or 32GBis fine. For digital downloaders like me, I'll spend $50 on a 1TB USB HDD and have way more space than I should ever need. OR for others... a 64GB SDHC SD card for $30 or so is perfect.

Basically, this is the perfect solution vs being forced to spend $50 to $100 more up front on the console when you may never need that space.


I guess it's good for the casual gamers, but for me I need A LOT more space. SO unless the downloadable games and patches are damn small, I"ll have to get another HDD

 

Well better than an xbox 360 where it cost 50 dollars for a refurbished hard drive at 120gb of space.  I can get a 120gb sata drive for 20 or so new.


Ya true.


Yeah, I was just pointing that out.  I absolutely am happy with the way Nintendo handled the HDD solution.  Instead of making the HDD a proprietary one or a hard to swap out one they stuck with an age old standard.  The USB HDD.  Which a lot of people seem to have one already.  I don't, but ill be sure to get one.  I think the 8-32GB inside was just to make sure people had room to store saved games and small gamefix patches if needed if they chose not to buy DLC or play games off their HDD.

you can buy a new 250gb hdd for 360 for $50 or 320gb for $58, just as info, no clue where some people buy their stuff to pay the same for a used product with half the space...

but i also like if you can use every hdd, it's still cheaper then but i still think there should be one console with at least 250gb or so, not so beautiful to have a hdd on your console in your living room which will be needed for me.


It is, you can hide the HDD wherever you want.  And if you're that crazy about looks just buy an SSD or a laptop sized drive and hide it behind the console.  If you get a decent looking enclosure I don't see the darn problem.  You people just want to find every little thing to knit pick don't you.  60 dollars is the cheapest I can find a new 250 xbox HDD.  Which is still overpriced.  Seeing as I can find a new 500gb HDD for that price.  The HDD in the Wii-U isn't probably a physical drive even.  It's a nand flash chip I'm guessing.  Which means it's a lot faster than a physical HDD.  To put 250GB of flash memory inside the Wii-U it would jack the price of the console up by at least 100 dollars.  And that 100 dollars is factoring in bulk prices. Since a 250GB ssd on the consumer level is 170 at the cheapest. 



Crono141 on 14 September 2012

What would be killer is net attached storage.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.

Around the Network
Viper1 on 14 September 2012
errorpwns said:


It is, you can hide the HDD wherever you want.  And if you're that crazy about looks just buy an SSD or a laptop sized drive and hide it behind the console.  If you get a decent looking enclosure I don't see the darn problem.  You people just want to find every little thing to knit pick don't you.  60 dollars is the cheapest I can find a new 250 xbox HDD.  Which is still overpriced.  Seeing as I can find a new 500gb HDD for that price.  The HDD in the Wii-U isn't probably a physical drive even.  It's a nand flash chip I'm guessing.  Which means it's a lot faster than a physical HDD.  To put 250GB of flash memory inside the Wii-U it would jack the price of the console up by at least 100 dollars.  And that 100 dollars is factoring in bulk prices. Since a 250GB ssd on the consumer level is 170 at the cheapest. 

Even better, you can get 1.5 TB's for $70.  Just $10 more.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

errorpwns on 14 September 2012
CGI-Quality said:
errorpwns said:
Do you people really expect the 720 and PS4 to have 8GB of memory? Oh wow haha. Most desktops don't have 8gb right now. You can game perfectly fine on 4gb even on Windows 7. 8Gb just adds more room for comfort. Heck 16gb of ram in a desktop has been shown to REDUCE fps in certain situations. When the desktop has too much memory than it needs. Higher speed memory > Amount usually. 4gb of high speed memory will go a long way over 8gb of slower memory. Of course there's a huge difference between 512mb and 2gb of memory. Next gen consoles will be fine with 2-3gb. Even 4 might be overkill.

It has? Where can I see that? 


Well mileage will vary of course, but as of now there is no noticable difference between 8gb of ddr3, 12gb of ddr3, and 16gb of ddr3 at the same speed.  Heck in some test 16gb has been shown to get a frame or two less.  For gaming I'd rather have 8gb of 2133 instead of 16gb of 1600 or 1333.  Since going from 1600 to 2133 makes a huge speed impact.  Even if it is less overall memory. For gaming it just simply isn't required. All about bottlenecks.  If you're working on 3d modeling and heavy particle testing, etc then you want 16gb of memory. Other than that not needed.  Faster memory instead.  



errorpwns on 14 September 2012
CGI-Quality said:
errorpwns said:
Heck 16gb of ram in a desktop has been shown to REDUCE fps in certain situations. 

It has? Where can I see that? 

Edit: Even a Google search provided no source for that. I'm not saying 4GB of RAM on a next gen console isn't too much (though I personally would assume it to be a sweet spot given these machines need to last at least 5-6 years), but I've never heard that 16GB of RAM lowers FPS in PC games (not even in certain situations). 

If that was the case, I'd be in serious trouble with a RIG having 32GB of RAM.

Well I guess I worded it a bit too serious.  I should of mentioned they were negligable decreases, but it all varies from test to test.  Just the point is buying slower ram in larger amounts is going to give you less FPS anyways.  Considering you could of bought the faster ram and have gained FPS.  I don't get why people are arguing more ram now.  Yet they bring up the PS3s faster ram is a strong point over the 360.  Even though the 360 has more ram to give in certain cases.



happydolphin on 14 September 2012
ethomaz said:
The rumors about RAM is confirmed... 1GB for game.

I think is fine... a little over twice the current gen (360 have ~485MB and PS3 ~475MB).

I expected more of course but it's fine.

Wow, a balance post ethomaz. I like it.

@libroex. Quiet you.



errorpwns on 14 September 2012
CGI-Quality said:
errorpwns said:
CGI-Quality said:
errorpwns said:
Do you people really expect the 720 and PS4 to have 8GB of memory? Oh wow haha. Most desktops don't have 8gb right now. You can game perfectly fine on 4gb even on Windows 7. 8Gb just adds more room for comfort. Heck 16gb of ram in a desktop has been shown to REDUCE fps in certain situations. When the desktop has too much memory than it needs. Higher speed memory > Amount usually. 4gb of high speed memory will go a long way over 8gb of slower memory. Of course there's a huge difference between 512mb and 2gb of memory. Next gen consoles will be fine with 2-3gb. Even 4 might be overkill.

It has? Where can I see that? 


Well mileage will vary of course, but as of now there is no noticable difference between 8gb of ddr3, 12gb of ddr3, and 16gb of ddr3 at the same speed.  Heck in some test 16gb has been shown to get a frame or two less.  For gaming I'd rather have 8gb of 2133 instead of 16gb of 1600 or 1333.  Since going from 1600 to 2133 makes a huge speed impact.  Even if it is less overall memory. For gaming it just simply isn't required. All about bottlenecks.  If you're working on 3d modeling and heavy particle testing, etc then you want 16gb of memory. Other than that not needed.  Faster memory instead.  

No notable difference is believable. More than 2-4GB probably isn't required. However, areduction in performance with more RAM, is not something I've heard of nor seen.

For a guy like me who will be gaming on a rig with 32GB of RAM @ 1600MHz, I don't expect to see a loss in fps. In fact, the GPU and CPU combo will impact that much more than RAM (some place else I don't expect to be lacking), and in any case that I've seen, the extra RAM will only help. Even for threading and rendering (stuff I do as a game developer / graphic designer), that depends greatly on your CPU, with the GPU picking up of the slack for anti-aliasing and smoothing.

RAM will hardly, if ever, be an issue if there's more than needed. In a gaming console, I agree that 2-4GB is sufficient right now, though.


Hmm, maybe I'm just having a foggy memory.  None the less yeah consoles will get by on 2-4gb.  I really wish more consoles had ram expansion like the N64 did.  That was amazing of nintendo to add.