The Wii U is more powerful. This is obvious.

What is not obvious, yet, is by how much.



Anybody (for or against Wii U) making claims at this point can be labeled as not knowing enough to speak with any credibility. My apologies if that hurts any of my fiends. But just as they can't say for certain one way, neither can we yet....

What I can say with absolute certainty is that the Japanese Yen to western currency exchange rates will play the biggest role in developing a console EVER. And I hate using all caps for any word.

The PS Vita has already proven that more powerful doesn't mean more sales.

well said...well said..*claps*

@curl-6

adjective i-ˈfi-shənt  *productive of desired effects

In other words, capable of doing more.  In this case, 20% more.  And, based on that fact, it was Ron Martino's opinion that a 20% higher efficiency console is a significantly better one.

@oni-link

I've never had any issue with Bayonetta 2 on Wii U.  Moving along...

lol better than any PC I have seen.

The CPU is not based in Watson... I'm sure because IBM itself confirmed that.... the modified E6760 present in Wii U (this part I'm gessing) runs with lower clock to reach a low TDP.

It specifically says power efficient. As in, it is 20% more efficient in its use of electricity, not it's graphical output.

Did you just confuse the CPU with the GPU?

Nope.

CPU is a POWER based but not Watson (confirmed).

The rumors says to use a modified version of AMD GPU E6760 if that the case I think the E6760 is clocked down to reach the TDP of 25W (the GPU @ 600Mhz have 35W TDP). I have my suspects the GPU is not a E6760 but a RV730 with eDRAM because the die-size (~280mm^2, expeculation based in pixel count of course).

That the best bet I can do with there informations...

CPU

3 cores
256 KB of L2 per core
2 MB of eDRAM L3
4 wide SIMD
less than 2.0 Ghz
IBM 45nm process

GPU

RV730 (or  E6760)
32MB of eDRAM
500-600Mhz (400-500Mhz for E6760)
TSMC 55nm

That's all I can supose now with the low info found in the internet.

Edit - It's will be nice to do a prediction thread lol

Edit 2 - @curl-6 is right power efficience is about electric energy consumption and not power itself... the Wii U CPU consume 20% less energy than the Wii CPU.

My speculation is that because the CPU is clocked lower(hence requiring less power), they have more room for the GPU clocks since the peak is supposed to be 75W~ and because it's a MMC configuration, it's a lot more efficient. When looking at the PCB, you can see how clean it is, which is always a very good thing since less parts=less prone to failure, less heat generation, less time for all the parts to reach one another hence much closer to theoretical performance (whatever that might be, so far only internal Nintendo would know). Wii U is closer to a PC than anything else thus far since it's behind the idea that the CPU doesn't need to do as much work but the majority should be offloaded to the GPGPU(whereas the 360 and PS3 do a lot of work on the Xenon and Cell), the differences are the memory configurations and how the CPU will effect the performance in the future, if Nintendo is good at creating efficient hardware like before, then the balance should be pretty decent.

The N64 and Gamecube are perfect example of power in a small package. The consoles were both very powerful, didn't require too much power, and were small. Even though they were small, Nintendo made sure they had proper airflow and plenty of cooling to allow for a long life span.