If anyone is curious about the efforts of breaking down the GPU in Wii U, here is the thread that is slowing making progress.

Real and definitive info is only in the OP. Quite a lot of the rest is pure speculation.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511628

This picture is meaningless since all the Pikmin have fled before the picture was taken. So we still don't know what type of Pikmin are in charge of the GPU. There is a huge difference between Purple Pikmin performance and Rock Pikmin performance.

Nintendo is over engineering and over thinking their hardware.

They should've just used an AMD E6760, it would've saved them a lot in R&D costs and given them higher performance for probably an equivalent cost (maybe even cheaper) since it wouldn't be such a custom part (500+ GLFOPS easy). Third parties would like it better because it'd be easier to move PC games to the platform, and lets face it, Nintendo's own teams do fine on any hardware. And an E6760 only draws 35 watts and that's with GDDR5 memory, axe that and it would be even lower.

You could customize it a bit I'm sure too.

Insisting on such proprietary, customized hardware is killing Nintendo on cost, and they're not even getting great performance bang for their buck. For $350+  IMO, even with a 6 inch low-res LCD screen on the controller, they could've gotten a better piece of hardware from AMD.

I think this is where Yamauchi and Iwata are different, Yamauchi would opt to go with more standardized components if it meant cheaper cost/better performance.

Now THAT makes perfect sense to me. AMD FireGL/PRO series also have more TMU's and ROP's per shaders than the desktop series, and those series are designed for multimedia creation software. Also it makes a FLOPS comparison useless, but it does mean it can push way more textures and pixels per second.

Bottom line: This chip might not be great in something like a PC, but it's great in a dedicated device as a game console.

The guy remade the pixels comparisons between the 40nm and 55nm and know they thing the shaders are 320 but the others units are the same count.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1702416&postcount=4448

The number of SPs are 160 or 360... 20 or 40 per CU.

160 SPs @ 550Mhz = 176 GFLOPS
320 SPs @ 550Mhz = 352 GFLOPS

I will love to match my previous claim... Wii U 1.5x PS360... EPIC.

This. I mean, what if flying pink pikmin are behind the GPU? What then?

I'm tired of so many people basing their opinions on baseless speculation!

Nice, but it's probably the much newer chip design that's giving the Wii-U it's edge then. The X360 uses a 240/16/8 configuration. The problem then is that multi-platform games probably won't look much better on Wii-U.

I imagine it has to be 352 GFLOPs, would it even be able to run Black Ops 2 on two screens (albeit one is the lower res tablet screen) at 170-ish GFLOPs? That's below the 360.

Still Nintendo should've just said "screw this" and made a proper 60 watt system (still plenty power efficient and could be reduced down to 33 watts over time) and blown the doors off the 360/PS3.

They made the mistake of making the system far too close to the cheaper 360/PS3.

Well i guess 1.5 times the processing power and twice the video memory is pretty good, though it isn't enough for multi-platform games at 1080P. Just hope the CPU is better than it looks.

tagging