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

Forums - Gaming - Wii U graphics power finally revealed - "we can now finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U"

Hynad on 06 February 2013
ninjablade said:
thismeintiel said:
gronk-bonk said:
ninjablade said:

will its wiiu fualt and its not, the reason why most ports are inferior is because in some aspects its weaker then 360, cpu and memory bandwidth, can developers with more time get around the bottle necks, probably but i'm not 100% sure till i start seeing better MP versions on the wiiu.


no it is isnt. They were rushed for the launch. It is simple as that. They had 6 months to 1 year to make a wii u version, while the developers had 6 years of experience and optimizations trick  for the other consol version.It has nothing to do with limitations of the console. Trine 2 director cut on the wii u cannot run on the ps3/360 without donwgrading. Alien colonial marines Wii U will be the best looking console version. So your argument is flawed in so many ways

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. 


we have the specs, fact is memory bandwidth and cpu are weaker then current gen, sure it has more flops but those are 2 huge bottle necks, and i haven't seen any proof yet or explanation how to over come them. developers already have the foundation for wiiu, the the hd gen developers made new engines for textures and ighting, just to take advanatge of the power they had. wiiu already has thid in place.


Well, the thing is, we DON'T have the specs.

We have speculations about the specs.

Thank you. 



Around the Network
ps3-sales! on 06 February 2013

It's good enough and will eventually sell many units. Tired of this "power = sales" argument.



Currently own:

 

  • Ps4

 

Currently playing: Witcher 3, Walking Dead S1/2, GTA5, Dying Light, Tomb Raider Remaster, MGS Ground Zeros

ninjablade on 06 February 2013
Hynad said:
ninjablade said:
thismeintiel said:
gronk-bonk said:
ninjablade said:

will its wiiu fualt and its not, the reason why most ports are inferior is because in some aspects its weaker then 360, cpu and memory bandwidth, can developers with more time get around the bottle necks, probably but i'm not 100% sure till i start seeing better MP versions on the wiiu.


no it is isnt. They were rushed for the launch. It is simple as that. They had 6 months to 1 year to make a wii u version, while the developers had 6 years of experience and optimizations trick  for the other consol version.It has nothing to do with limitations of the console. Trine 2 director cut on the wii u cannot run on the ps3/360 without donwgrading. Alien colonial marines Wii U will be the best looking console version. So your argument is flawed in so many ways

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. 


we have the specs, fact is memory bandwidth and cpu are weaker then current gen, sure it has more flops but those are 2 huge bottle necks, and i haven't seen any proof yet or explanation how to over come them. developers already have the foundation for wiiu, the the hd gen developers made new engines for textures and ighting, just to take advanatge of the power they had. wiiu already has thid in place.


Well, the thing is, we DON'T have the specs.

We have speculations about the specs.

Thank you. 

we do have the specs for the most part http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

look under my sig those are all confirmed specs barring some kind of miracle.



curl-6 on 06 February 2013
ninjablade said:
Hynad said:
ninjablade said:
thismeintiel said:
gronk-bonk said:
ninjablade said:

will its wiiu fualt and its not, the reason why most ports are inferior is because in some aspects its weaker then 360, cpu and memory bandwidth, can developers with more time get around the bottle necks, probably but i'm not 100% sure till i start seeing better MP versions on the wiiu.


no it is isnt. They were rushed for the launch. It is simple as that. They had 6 months to 1 year to make a wii u version, while the developers had 6 years of experience and optimizations trick  for the other consol version.It has nothing to do with limitations of the console. Trine 2 director cut on the wii u cannot run on the ps3/360 without donwgrading. Alien colonial marines Wii U will be the best looking console version. So your argument is flawed in so many ways

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. 


we have the specs, fact is memory bandwidth and cpu are weaker then current gen, sure it has more flops but those are 2 huge bottle necks, and i haven't seen any proof yet or explanation how to over come them. developers already have the foundation for wiiu, the the hd gen developers made new engines for textures and ighting, just to take advanatge of the power they had. wiiu already has thid in place.


Well, the thing is, we DON'T have the specs.

We have speculations about the specs.

Thank you. 

we do have the specs for the most part http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

look under my sig those are all confirmed specs barring some kind of miracle.

The specs are incomplete, and some of them are assumptions rather than fact.



ninjablade on 06 February 2013
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
Hynad said:
ninjablade said:
thismeintiel said:
gronk-bonk said:
ninjablade said:

will its wiiu fualt and its not, the reason why most ports are inferior is because in some aspects its weaker then 360, cpu and memory bandwidth, can developers with more time get around the bottle necks, probably but i'm not 100% sure till i start seeing better MP versions on the wiiu.


no it is isnt. They were rushed for the launch. It is simple as that. They had 6 months to 1 year to make a wii u version, while the developers had 6 years of experience and optimizations trick  for the other consol version.It has nothing to do with limitations of the console. Trine 2 director cut on the wii u cannot run on the ps3/360 without donwgrading. Alien colonial marines Wii U will be the best looking console version. So your argument is flawed in so many ways

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. 


we have the specs, fact is memory bandwidth and cpu are weaker then current gen, sure it has more flops but those are 2 huge bottle necks, and i haven't seen any proof yet or explanation how to over come them. developers already have the foundation for wiiu, the the hd gen developers made new engines for textures and ighting, just to take advanatge of the power they had. wiiu already has thid in place.


Well, the thing is, we DON'T have the specs.

We have speculations about the specs.

Thank you. 

we do have the specs for the most part http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

look under my sig those are all confirmed specs barring some kind of miracle.

The specs are incomplete, and some of them are assumptions rather than fact.


did you read the article, most of it is cold hard facts, at first some people said eurogamer rushed the article but its going on 2 days now and nobody corrected anything, even neogaf are accepting the 352 gflops numbers now here is quote i found intersting in the comment section.

 

[quote/]Am I the only one being shocked by the fact that the Wii U CPU is basically the same type that I had in my 1998 PowerMac G3?! Am I correct here, it's basically a triple-core overclocked PowerPC 750?!! ROFLMAO! No wonder the poor ports and performance, the GPU on that thing is no powerhouse by any means but that ancient CPU architecture is choking it blue. A 3DFX Voodoo2 would have been a better match. They'd be better off if they'd stuck a current low-end, dual-core celeron in there instead but I guess they got a ridiculously good deal on tons of left-over GC/Wii CPU's laying around the manufacturers warehouse. Facepalm Nintendo, facepalm...[quote/]



Around the Network
Sensei on 06 February 2013

Why am I not surprised?

Knew from the start the Wii U was not true next gen.



curl-6 on 06 February 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:

we do have the specs for the most part http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

look under my sig those are all confirmed specs barring some kind of miracle.

The specs are incomplete, and some of them are assumptions rather than fact.


did you read the article, most of it is cold hard facts, at first some people said eurogamer rushed the article but its going on 2 days now and nobody corrected anything, even neogaf are accepting the 352 gflops numbers now here is quote i found intersting in the comment section.

 

Am I the only one being shocked by the fact that the Wii U CPU is basically the same type that I had in my 1998 PowerMac G3?! Am I correct here, it's basically a triple-core overclocked PowerPC 750?!! ROFLMAO! No wonder the poor ports and performance, the GPU on that thing is no powerhouse by any means but that ancient CPU architecture is choking it blue. A 3DFX Voodoo2 would have been a better match. They'd be better off if they'd stuck a current low-end, dual-core celeron in there instead but I guess they got a ridiculously good deal on tons of left-over GC/Wii CPU's laying around the manufacturers warehouse. Facepalm Nintendo, facepalm...

I read the article; there's plenty of unknown factors and guesstimates. And I'm not sure how a troll post helps your point?



ninjablade on 06 February 2013
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:

we do have the specs for the most part http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

look under my sig those are all confirmed specs barring some kind of miracle.

The specs are incomplete, and some of them are assumptions rather than fact.


did you read the article, most of it is cold hard facts, at first some people said eurogamer rushed the article but its going on 2 days now and nobody corrected anything, even neogaf are accepting the 352 gflops numbers now here is quote i found intersting in the comment section.

 

Am I the only one being shocked by the fact that the Wii U CPU is basically the same type that I had in my 1998 PowerMac G3?! Am I correct here, it's basically a triple-core overclocked PowerPC 750?!! ROFLMAO! No wonder the poor ports and performance, the GPU on that thing is no powerhouse by any means but that ancient CPU architecture is choking it blue. A 3DFX Voodoo2 would have been a better match. They'd be better off if they'd stuck a current low-end, dual-core celeron in there instead but I guess they got a ridiculously good deal on tons of left-over GC/Wii CPU's laying around the manufacturers warehouse. Facepalm Nintendo, facepalm...

I read the article; there's plenty of unknown factors and guesstimates. And I'm not sure how a troll post helps your point?

i don't see how its a troll post it actaully makes sense, why they put such a weak cpu in the machine. anyway i believe DF, they have a amazing track record, no reason to doubt them and nobody has proved them wrong. 



Aielyn on 06 February 2013
ninjablade said:

did you read the article, most of it is cold hard facts, at first some people said eurogamer rushed the article but its going on 2 days now and nobody corrected anything, even neogaf are accepting the 352 gflops numbers now here is quote i found intersting in the comment section.

Not a single one of the claims in the article are "cold hard facts". Most of them are regurgitations of theories put forward on NeoGAF, and even the people at NeoGAF are themselves criticising the article for its absurdity.

NeoGAF are mostly considering the 352 GFLOPS number to be the best guess at this point in time, but it's not at all certain, yet, and even the people at NeoGAF will say that it might not be right. Indeed, one of the theories by one of the most well-respected people at NeoGAF (the guy who made the thread about the die image, in fact) is that the shader units may not be symmetric, and thus is may actually be pushing more than the popular estimate.

Meanwhile, I find it funny that you take a quote from someone in the comments section of Eurogamer as somehow representing fact, when we actually know less about the CPU than the GPU. I mean... really?



ninjablade on 06 February 2013
Aielyn said:
ninjablade said:

did you read the article, most of it is cold hard facts, at first some people said eurogamer rushed the article but its going on 2 days now and nobody corrected anything, even neogaf are accepting the 352 gflops numbers now here is quote i found intersting in the comment section.

Not a single one of the claims in the article are "cold hard facts". Most of them are regurgitations of theories put forward on NeoGAF, and even the people at NeoGAF are themselves criticising the article for its absurdity.

NeoGAF are mostly considering the 352 GFLOPS number to be the best guess at this point in time, but it's not at all certain, yet, and even the people at NeoGAF will say that it might not be right. Indeed, one of the theories by one of the most well-respected people at NeoGAF (the guy who made the thread about the die image, in fact) is that the shader units may not be symmetric, and thus is may actually be pushing more than the popular estimate.

Meanwhile, I find it funny that you take a quote from someone in the comments section of Eurogamer as somehow representing fact, when we actually know less about the CPU than the GPU. I mean... really?


actually we know about the cpu more the gpu, its confirmed to same as wii 3 cores and over clocked , hector marcan confirmed this a few days ago, i doubt DF gonna be corrected, they are always on point.