i will bet you a 2 week ban bet that multi-paform games will stay inferior to the 360 version, the next 5 multipltform games, the only problem is, we don't even know if there any more MP games coming out anytime soon , with the horrible sales. to me the 6 year thing don't make no differnce, the wii u is based on out dated tech that developers have seen 5 years ago,  i'm  sure  the gpu is only custumized, for the tablet, BC and being very effeciant.

yea but i don't need complaints when you can see it in games like zombieu, epic micky and blops 2.

I'm sure if third parties really tweaked the system they could make the games look slightly better than 360 stuff.

That said ... why even go through all this headache, Nintendo?

They should've just thrown a E6760 in the box or something like that. PC architecture would be a no brainer for developers, it still has low power consumption, and EAD's groups don't even use the full power of the 3DS or Wii U anyway, so who cares. They'd make great games if you forced them to go work on the SNES chip again.

Honestly though they should've just made a "PC-in-a-box". Fine it for console performance of course, but that's basically what developers want. If they had that, IMO they don't have a software drought right now.

And it's not like you get some cookie for having a propietary architecture.

RazorDragon said: ninjablade said: not really simple as that, trine 2 was a game that played into wiiu strength the gpu, even the developer admited the games light on cpu use, fact is wiiu has a weaker cpu and slower bandwidth then 360 two major bottle  necks and as for colonial marines, please don't use that as an example cause we heard the samething from activision, tecmo and vigil that wiiu version would be the best, when they turned out to be the worst. While it's true(depending on the game) about the CPU part, the bandwidth part is not fully explained yet and shouldn't be taken in consideration before knowing more about how the Wii U uses it. I suggest you reading this article: http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/01/17/wiiu-memory-story/ One part of the article: "We also must take into account several intricate concepts of bus and direction of RAM. For starters, the 22.4GB/s bandwidth of current gen systems buses is often an aggregated rate, distributed between reads and writes with the RAM. In the case of Xbox 360, the CPU doesn’t reach this speed as its access to the RAM is bound by the FSB, the interface connecting it with the GPU where resides the memory controller. And this FSB bandwidth is 10.8GB/s for read and 10.8GB/s for write. Click to see the full Xbox360 block diagram – In red, the 10.8GB/s bandwidth related to the CPU For that reason, and strictly speaking about the CPU transfers with the main memory, it’s possible that the Wii U RAM full write or read bandwidth (12.8GB/s) isn’t as much at a disadvantage as the marketed numbers might suggest if the interface between U-CPU and U-GPU authorize this peak rate. As they are on the same substrate (the Multi Chip Module), it’s expected, although U-CPU bus to the GPU might be split like for Xenon. Still, since the CPU and GPU share the same bandwidth with the RAM, we’re talking of very specific circumstances here, like data processing sequences where the GPU might not use much RAM by extensively leveraging the eDram for example, allowing the CPU to get the most out of the transfer capabilities with the main memory. Wii U CPU and GPU on the MCM Likewise, this RAM bandwidth isn’t only common for all the components consuming it, it’s also bidirectional, meaning it can be used either for reads or writes. This characteristic could be combined with the eDram too, working as a “scratchpad” where the important writing operations will be aimed, reducing the amount of writes to the RAM which could then benefit of its full bandwidth potential for data reads. However, this asymmetrical memory organization undoubtedly requires optimization, especially from ports that may have put to task the greater bandwidth of the Xbox 360 and PS3 GDDR3 RAM for concurrent reads and writes."   Also, there are no complaints about bandwidth from developers, so that should tell something.

Excellent and well balanced article. I especially liked the interview with the anonymous developer at the end.

You have been moderated a few times, so your account will be endagered for a permaband. How about signature control? The bet will prove nothing. As it still favors my argument. Nontheless im willing.

ok bet is on, 3d retail games, only though.

Your comparisons are still just silly. ZombiU is a launch game that started off as a 360/PS3 game originally, and they would have had limited time with the final dev kit to make launch day, Epic Mickey was ported by a B studio in 6 months or less (and was poorly done in all aspects even on the other systems), and BLOPS2 was a quick port (by necessity) designed for different architecture as well. One of the most demanding games (Mass Effect 3) actually did pretty well on the WiiU overall in spite of it being a quick port, Trine 2 on WiiU kicked the HD Twins' butts, and ground-up stuff will be able to surpass what the PS360 are capable of, period. You clearly have no concept of architecture, nor any ability to look at things in a balanced way, and you gloat every time some 'bad' news comes out about the WiiU. It obviously won't be as powerful as the PS4/720, but the gap is MUCH smaller than the Wii-360 gap (~20x difference for Wii-360, 3-5x difference for WiiU-PS4/720). This zealous (confirmation bias fueled) witch hunt of yours is pretty entertaining to watch.

The Wii U can produce the E3 2011 Zelda and Japanesse Garden level graphics since they produced on Wii U hardware. They running real time. That's all I need to know.

timmah said: RazorDragon said: ninjablade said: not really simple as that, trine 2 was a game that played into wiiu strength the gpu, even the developer admited the games light on cpu use, fact is wiiu has a weaker cpu and slower bandwidth then 360 two major bottle  necks and as for colonial marines, please don't use that as an example cause we heard the samething from activision, tecmo and vigil that wiiu version would be the best, when they turned out to be the worst. While it's true(depending on the game) about the CPU part, the bandwidth part is not fully explained yet and shouldn't be taken in consideration before knowing more about how the Wii U uses it. I suggest you reading this article: http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/01/17/wiiu-memory-story/ One part of the article: "We also must take into account several intricate concepts of bus and direction of RAM. For starters, the 22.4GB/s bandwidth of current gen systems buses is often an aggregated rate, distributed between reads and writes with the RAM. In the case of Xbox 360, the CPU doesn’t reach this speed as its access to the RAM is bound by the FSB, the interface connecting it with the GPU where resides the memory controller. And this FSB bandwidth is 10.8GB/s for read and 10.8GB/s for write. Click to see the full Xbox360 block diagram – In red, the 10.8GB/s bandwidth related to the CPU For that reason, and strictly speaking about the CPU transfers with the main memory, it’s possible that the Wii U RAM full write or read bandwidth (12.8GB/s) isn’t as much at a disadvantage as the marketed numbers might suggest if the interface between U-CPU and U-GPU authorize this peak rate. As they are on the same substrate (the Multi Chip Module), it’s expected, although U-CPU bus to the GPU might be split like for Xenon. Still, since the CPU and GPU share the same bandwidth with the RAM, we’re talking of very specific circumstances here, like data processing sequences where the GPU might not use much RAM by extensively leveraging the eDram for example, allowing the CPU to get the most out of the transfer capabilities with the main memory. Wii U CPU and GPU on the MCM Likewise, this RAM bandwidth isn’t only common for all the components consuming it, it’s also bidirectional, meaning it can be used either for reads or writes. This characteristic could be combined with the eDram too, working as a “scratchpad” where the important writing operations will be aimed, reducing the amount of writes to the RAM which could then benefit of its full bandwidth potential for data reads. However, this asymmetrical memory organization undoubtedly requires optimization, especially from ports that may have put to task the greater bandwidth of the Xbox 360 and PS3 GDDR3 RAM for concurrent reads and writes."   Also, there are no complaints about bandwidth from developers, so that should tell something. Excellent and well balanced article. I especially liked the interview with the anonymous developer at the end.

As my sarcasm sensor doesn't work on the internet, i can't tell if you're being serious or not. Anyway, this article shed light into my hardware knowledge about the Wii U, so i thought it would be nice to share it to more people.

To be fair, 6 months to 1 year is hardly a rush job when a port is concerned, especially on a console that was touted to be able to handle 360 ports quite easily.  In comparison, a developer for the Vita said it only took his team a matter of weeks to port their PS3 game over to the Vita.  So, if the developers truly had 6 months to a year to port it over to the Wii U, and more demanding aspects of it performed worse, than there must be some bottlenecks to overcome.  Can they?  Probably.  But, do they care to will be the big question.  Especially if Nintendo doesn't do something to change its current sales.

Also, both of you need to learn how to trim qoute trees.