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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U GPU Die Image! Chipworks is AWESOME!

Kaizar on 06 February 2013
HoloDust said:
Kaizar said:

Hey since you guys know so much about tech, then can you help me with this:

Now the GameCube has over 20 million Polygons

The Wii probably has somewhere from 50 to 100 million polygons

The 3DS GPU spec says it can do 15.3 million Polygons and the PS Vita GPU spec is said to do up to 35 million polygons in any one game

But both Handhelds have more better looking graphics then the Wii, and easily at that.

How is that possible?

I mean they look more detail and everything.

Is it the triangles or what?

3DS - PICA2000:

  • 400 MPixels/s @100 MHz
  • 1600 MPixels/s @400 MHz
  • 40 MTriangles/s @100 MHz
  • 160 MTriangles/s @400 MHz

VITA - SGX543MP4+ (4 cores):

  • 1000 MPixels/s @200 MHz per core
  • 35 MTriangles/s @200 MHz per core

Thanks, that would go well with info I got from a user name Drago on yahoo answers:

ok i am really tired of this crap how foolish the people are they even dont know about nintendo 3ds cpu and its hidden capacities i open 3ds myself and i found out about

3ds:-
1] 2 cpu's its dual core each is cabable of going to 1.8ghz but each underclocked at 800mhz for battery issues
2]more than 200mb of ram ...some people say its 128mb but its more than that...
3]gpu is is clocked at 400mhz
4]gpu can be overclocked at more than 1ghz so think about that.underclocked at 400mhz
5]its 3d think before you talk.
6]1.5gb of flash memory.
7]overall cpu of 3ds can be more than 3ghz if overclocked.

ps vita:-
1]4 cpus 4 cores running each at 1ghz it isn't even capable of going up to 1.2ghz.
2]cpu is same as iphone 4's
3]526mb of ram it can be more than that...cause its much better than ps3
4]gpu is capable of going upto 300mhz..so think about it.
5]even if 3ds and ps vita will be hacked..people arent gonna download those up to 8gb sized games of vita & 3ds 
6]max cartridge capacity of 3ds is same as ps vita.
7]over all cpu of ps vita is upto 4ghz.

I think he got confuse about the RAM because of efficiency or something like that. Am I right?

But can you guys explain this whole thing more better?



Around the Network
DieAppleDie on 06 February 2013
Kaizar said:
HoloDust said:
Kaizar said:

Hey since you guys know so much about tech, then can you help me with this:

Now the GameCube has over 20 million Polygons

The Wii probably has somewhere from 50 to 100 million polygons

The 3DS GPU spec says it can do 15.3 million Polygons and the PS Vita GPU spec is said to do up to 35 million polygons in any one game

But both Handhelds have more better looking graphics then the Wii, and easily at that.

How is that possible?

I mean they look more detail and everything.

Is it the triangles or what?

3DS - PICA2000:

  • 400 MPixels/s @100 MHz
  • 1600 MPixels/s @400 MHz
  • 40 MTriangles/s @100 MHz
  • 160 MTriangles/s @400 MHz

VITA - SGX543MP4+ (4 cores):

  • 1000 MPixels/s @200 MHz per core
  • 35 MTriangles/s @200 MHz per core

Thanks, that would go well with info I got from a user name Drago on yahoo answers:

ok i am really tired of this crap how foolish the people are they even dont know about nintendo 3ds cpu and its hidden capacities i open 3ds myself and i found out about

3ds:-
1] 2 cpu's its dual core each is cabable of going to 1.8ghz but each underclocked at 800mhz for battery issues
2]more than 200mb of ram ...some people say its 128mb but its more than that...
3]gpu is is clocked at 400mhz
4]gpu can be overclocked at more than 1ghz so think about that.underclocked at 400mhz
5]its 3d think before you talk.
6]1.5gb of flash memory.
7]overall cpu of 3ds can be more than 3ghz if overclocked.

ps vita:-
1]4 cpus 4 cores running each at 1ghz it isn't even cable of going up to 1.2ghz.
2]cpu is same as iphone 4's
3]526mb of ram it can be more than that...cause its much better than ps3
4]gpu is capable of going upto 300mhz..so think about it ps vita lovers.
5]even if 3ds and ps vita will be hacked..people arent gonna download those up to 8gb sized games of vita & 3ds 
6]max cartridge capacity of 3ds is same as ps vita.
7]over all cpu of ps vita is upto 4ghz
I think he got confuse about the RAM because of efficiency or something like that. Am I right?
But can you guys explain this whole thing more better?

 



those numbers are REALLY accurate, thanks for the info, keep it up the good work

Podings on 06 February 2013
zarx said:
Podings said:
Surprise surprise.

Nintendo have always relied on their own graphics technologies instead of other companies' engines, and of course their hardware is custom built for their way of doing things.

It's as some disgruntled 3rd parties say: Nintendo consoles are built for Nintendo games.

Nobody's made a game on Wii that looked better than Mario Galaxy, and chance is Nintendo will make the best looking Wii U games themselves, even with other studios having much more experience with "HD" asset creation.


Are you calling Miyamoto a liar?

"The other point is that many of our third-party software developers have been dedicated to technologies like shaders. As Wii U is designed to bring out their real strengths, there have recently been more cases where we develop something with their help," said Miyamoto. "It has been more convenient for us to work together with them because they have been able to more smoothly utilize their know-how for development for Wii U."

http://www.videogamer.com/news/nintendo_in-house_has_almost_reached_the_next-stage_of_wii_u_development.html

He seems to think the GPU was designed to bring out the strengths of studios used to using shaders, and that their internal teams have been learning from third parties how to properly utalize the Wii U.


Not a liar as such, and it wasn't meant as sharp critique.

It's just always interesting to see how Nintendo builds hardware highly optimized for their own way of making games, rather than directly pandering to the current AAA engines.

It's not that I think Nintendo aren't interested in 3rd party efforts looking good, or that they don't have to learn about shading.

 

However, their familiarity with the with the architecture and their knack for thorough art-direction will probably have Nintendo's titles looking a little bit better than what most others will muster, is what I'm saying. :)

 



Chark on 06 February 2013
DieAppleDie said:


those numbers are REALLY accurate, thanks for the info, keep it up the good work


I see what you did there.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

zarx on 06 February 2013
Podings said:
zarx said:
Podings said:
Surprise surprise.

Nintendo have always relied on their own graphics technologies instead of other companies' engines, and of course their hardware is custom built for their way of doing things.

It's as some disgruntled 3rd parties say: Nintendo consoles are built for Nintendo games.

Nobody's made a game on Wii that looked better than Mario Galaxy, and chance is Nintendo will make the best looking Wii U games themselves, even with other studios having much more experience with "HD" asset creation.


Are you calling Miyamoto a liar?

"The other point is that many of our third-party software developers have been dedicated to technologies like shaders. As Wii U is designed to bring out their real strengths, there have recently been more cases where we develop something with their help," said Miyamoto. "It has been more convenient for us to work together with them because they have been able to more smoothly utilize their know-how for development for Wii U."

http://www.videogamer.com/news/nintendo_in-house_has_almost_reached_the_next-stage_of_wii_u_development.html

He seems to think the GPU was designed to bring out the strengths of studios used to using shaders, and that their internal teams have been learning from third parties how to properly utalize the Wii U.


Not a liar as such, and it wasn't meant as sharp critique.

It's just always interesting to see how Nintendo builds hardware highly optimized for their own way of making games, rather than directly pandering to the current AAA engines.

It's not that I think Nintendo aren't interested in 3rd party efforts looking good, or that they don't have to learn about shading.

 

However, their familiarity with the with the architecture and their knack for thorough art-direction will probably have Nintendo's titles looking a little bit better than what most others will muster, is what I'm saying. :)

 


But he specifically says that they were working with 3rd parties because they were more experianced with shaders and that the hardware was designed to bring out the strengths of third parties that are experianced with shaders. And he also specifically says the internal devs aren't familiar with the architecture or shader based art.

That doesn't sound like the Wii U was designed optimised for how their devs make games. In fact he basically claims the exact oposite of your theory. He straight out says that the Wii U was designed around what 3rd parties are used to. Of course an exclusive game will look better as they can design around the hardware but that is true of any platform and not exclusive to Nintendo at all. 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
Podings on 06 February 2013
zarx said:
Podings said:
zarx said:
Podings said:
Surprise surprise.

Nintendo have always relied on their own graphics technologies instead of other companies' engines, and of course their hardware is custom built for their way of doing things.

It's as some disgruntled 3rd parties say: Nintendo consoles are built for Nintendo games.

Nobody's made a game on Wii that looked better than Mario Galaxy, and chance is Nintendo will make the best looking Wii U games themselves, even with other studios having much more experience with "HD" asset creation.


Are you calling Miyamoto a liar?

"The other point is that many of our third-party software developers have been dedicated to technologies like shaders. As Wii U is designed to bring out their real strengths, there have recently been more cases where we develop something with their help," said Miyamoto. "It has been more convenient for us to work together with them because they have been able to more smoothly utilize their know-how for development for Wii U."

http://www.videogamer.com/news/nintendo_in-house_has_almost_reached_the_next-stage_of_wii_u_development.html

He seems to think the GPU was designed to bring out the strengths of studios used to using shaders, and that their internal teams have been learning from third parties how to properly utalize the Wii U.


Not a liar as such, and it wasn't meant as sharp critique.

It's just always interesting to see how Nintendo builds hardware highly optimized for their own way of making games, rather than directly pandering to the current AAA engines.

It's not that I think Nintendo aren't interested in 3rd party efforts looking good, or that they don't have to learn about shading.

 

However, their familiarity with the with the architecture and their knack for thorough art-direction will probably have Nintendo's titles looking a little bit better than what most others will muster, is what I'm saying. :)

 


But he specifically says that they were working with 3rd parties because they were more experianced with shaders and that the hardware was designed to bring out the strengths of third parties that are experianced with shaders. And he also specifically says the internal devs aren't familiar with the architecture or shader based art.

That doesn't sound like the Wii U was designed optimised for how their devs make games. In fact he basically claims the exact oposite of your theory. He straight out says that the Wii U was designed around what 3rd parties are used to. Of course an exclusive game will look better as they can design around the hardware but that is true of any platform and not exclusive to Nintendo at all.

He SAYS it's built for third parties, because it's GOT programmable shaders in the first place, which no Nintendo sonsole has had before, and because they WANT to be friendly with 3rd parties.

If you look at that construction, and hear what the hardware designer says, it sounds very much like a Nintendo-centered piece of hardware, what with the enormous amounts of imbedded RAM and other quirks.

That shaders are there, and they reach out to third parties for advice has to do generally with shaders being the new thing. It's what they had to add to make a graphically more powerful machine in the first place. I still say it's largely built around Nintendo's way of making games, shaders or not.



F0X on 06 February 2013

The good news is that the Wii U is exactly what I've expected. The not as good thing is that I didn't expect a lot more of Wii U beyond console that plays prettier Nintendo games.

*thread ideas formulating*



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

oni-link on 07 February 2013
F0X said:
The good news is that the Wii U is exactly what I've expected. The not as good thing is that I didn't expect a lot more of Wii U beyond console that plays prettier Nintendo games.

*thread ideas formulating*


We'll see how Wii U games hold up against PS4/720 this coming E3.  It's only ~4 months away, I fully expect the Wii U to keep up with whatever Sony or MS will show for their new systems.  IF PS4/720 doesn't blow the Wii U out the water (like the PS360 does with the Wii) it'll be quite a letdown after all the hype I've been seeing in these threads lately(10x the power of Wii U) on the deficiency of the Wii U. (I'm hoping it does so I have a reason to upgrade my 360 slim as long as MS keeps the price ~$399 otherwise no buy for me)



asmodee on 07 February 2013

The last Nintendo Direct and the X (Monolith Soft) presentation are enough for me, I NEED a Wii U now



Aielyn on 08 February 2013

OK, perhaps someone can explain something to me.

The Wii U is speculated to have 320 stream processors, right? That's based on 40 stream processors per block, 8 blocks. And other possible values are either 256 stream processors (32 per block) or 160 stream processors (20 per block). And assuming each one gets one FLOP per cycle, you get the entire set producing up to 352 GFLOPS of processing power, right?

The 360 had just 48 stream processors, with a clock speed just a little slower than that of the Wii U's GPU, but got 240 GFLOPS from them. It did this by having each stream processor capable of up to 10 FLOPs per cycle.

So my question is this: why is it automatically assumed that the Wii U's stream processors are only capable of one FLOP per cycle, given this? It's a serious question, not rhetorical - I'm trying to understand why this isn't under consideration; is it lack of knowledge of GPUs on my part, a detail that I'm not aware of, or is it a possible oversight by the people analysing the system?

The other detail that, to me, goes with this question, is why, given the current speculation about the GPU, do we keep hearing about how the Wii U gets an amazing amount of graphical capability for its power draw? It has been repeatedly suggested or implied that the Wii U's efficiency is remarkably high. How does this mesh with the speculated details? What impact would having stream processors similar to those in the 360 (that is, stream processors that have a net power of multiple FLOPs per cycle) have on the power draw, relative to having more stream processors?