Too much common sense in one post! Please stop! Can't take this sort of thing on a gaming message board where opinion and console loyalty trump all other concerns! *head explodes*

yes crysis 3 on pc isnt massively better then the 360 version..... its extremely unbelievably massively better

It will be. Even comparing Crysis 2 on PC (with the HD texture pack and DX11 patch) vs 360 version is like night and day.

We've far left the realm of memory.

Yes, the ship has been beached upon the dread Reef of Hijacked Threads, destroyer of trains of thought and swallower of valid points.

Sorry. Meant Crysis 2. Everyone one knows it is much better on the PC. No one will argue that.

It was meant in the context of what was written before.

Leaving the DX11 and HD patch out of it (the xbox didn't get those enhancements as far as I know) and taking into account the speed of technological improvements that are made to PC CPUs and GPUs every few months, it should be indeed be night and day over a seven year console.

I just didn't think it was.

I used Crysis 2 for the sake of a straight comparison and it is not even close to being the best looking console game. Maybe I would have been better off using Halo 4 or Uncharted 3.

Sorry about derailing the thread. Let's see now... I really don't know that much about memory.

You have to ask yourself a few other unknowns. Speed and channel of ram also memory bandwidth of CPU. Hope this helps

The Core i7 processor supports up to three DDR3 memory channels. That is an additional memory channel over what the industry is using now - dual memory channels. As some are fond of pointing out, 3 memory channels will automatically give 50 % more memory bandwidth over 2 memory channels even if everything else remains the same. Great, isn't it?
Using DDR3-1333 memory, triple-channels would give you a memory bandwidth of 64 GB/s. That is a tremendous amount of memory bandwidth. But do we really, really need that kind of bandwidth? That is what we will be looking at today.


In these tests, we used the Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition running at 3.2 GHz. The L3 cache was set to run at 2.6 GHz. The DDR3 memory modules were set to run at 1066 MHz with timings of 7-7-7-20. Power Director7 was used to convert 3 minutes of a HD video (1080), while Cinebench was set to use all 8 threads.

Even with 50 % more memory bandwidth, Power Director 7 was just 9 seconds faster with 3 memory channels than it was with 2 memory channels. That's a completely negligible difference of 1 %.

Running with a single memory channel did result in a much longer render time. Power Director 7 took 84 seconds longer to complete the conversion. That's a difference of almost 11 %, compared to the conversion times with 2 or 3 memory channels.

So that some info about an i7 not the CPU in the wii u, and I imagine the i7 would kill the wii u CPU (my thoughts)

So back to your question. Would it load fast or yield better performance? Well the answer is yes.
A single lane highway can only let 1 vehicle pass at a time. Even at 60 mph
Two lane highway yields two vehicles at a time. However at 30mph you can expect the same data flow ( based on equal chips ). Another question is can each core pull from either lane ? If so a semi truck can be in lane 1 going to the CPU while a shitload of corvettes and Ferrari zip to the gpu.
Another thing is the memory controller that tells the info when and where and how fast to move. how good is that? Being on the same die I would bet its pretty fast. That being said there is no doubt in my mind that the wii u could pull from all 2 gigs if it wanted to, for gaming its up to Nintendo to allow that, which I also see happening with 512 extra ram for gaming to help with ports from 720/ps4.
Off topic*
I'm new but ill get in on the betting and predictions. 720 will have a full 4 gigs with ps4 having 2 full gigs for gaming with .5-1 gb for OS.
With wii u detailed why would they spend the money for an insanely geared product ? Slap an extra gig or 2 of ram 4 cores and a underclocked semi top of the line gpu for 400$ and make a profit.

PS sorry for typing I'm on my iPad and I hate typing with it. Hope this helps I am by no means an expert. But can say this I still use a socket 775 I could OC it but I don't q9550 with a 670 gtx 4 gigs of old school ram and I pull over 60fps maxed out in every game on my pc. Don't have crisis, but I still have to liquid cool it. So don't dismiss old technology!

If you look at any graphics card (with GDDR5 memory) or RAM sticks (with DDR3 mem.), you will notice that most of them use chips of 256 MB of capacity. Your asumption of 1 GB/chip was a bit... optimistic. And since we haven't seen the other side of the board we can't even be sure if WiiU uses 256 or 512 MB chips.

And any computer can acces their memory modules whenever it wants/needs.

The Wii U has 2 GB or RAM. It has 4 RAM chips. What more needs to be seen?

ummmm, Crysis 2 was built for consoles though, that's why Crysis 2 doesn't even look better than Crysis 1, most of the features that'd push the PC weren't even implemented into Crysis 2 so I'm not sure it's a good comparison. I mean, you can't hope to run something like Planetside 2 in maxed settings on a console and that's just on high settings ATM(I'm sure full release will have Ultra settings). I'm talking like a shit ton of things going on at once with aircrafts, fuck ton of tanks, a fuck ton of people running around at a really really far view distance here and I'm playing at 1080p 60 FPS and all, I mean, if you wanna talk about stressing a PC, Battlefield is no longer the correct benchmark, this is what you do:

not to mention that it's crazier in the game than this trailer, the battles are at least 5x as massive as this trailer, at least, on a huge ass continues map, and the second map just came out in beta.