Why are you still here derailing the thread ? 

Ninjablade was wrong time and time again, he was banned something like six times, he repeatedly tried to pass of rumour as fact, and he tried to talk tech while clearly not having a clue what he was talking about. The guy was a laughing stock and still is.

With any discussion about the latte fabrication you have to bear in mind the huge amount of stuff included in the latte, not only is a huge part the edram but there is also the arm cpu, audio dsp, 1MB wii u texture memory, 2MB wiii frame buffer, wii gpu, sections designed for high speed compression of the wii u gpu frame buffer and downscaled to fit in the wii gpu frame buffer. There is a huge amount of additional stuff.

The 176 gflops figure is completely realistic, not only does it fit in with the power consumption figures but it fits in with how the wii u is actually performing. Let's not forget the generational difference between 360/PS3 gpu's and the later radeon's is quite significant in performance.

If the latte really is 352 gflops and the architecture is much improved plus you have 32MB of high speed edram then what the hell is going wrong that the wii u that it is struggling to outperform 360/PS3 graphically? The figure of 176 gflops makes total sense, it simply works with all the information we have. If the latte really is 352 gflops then something has gone horribly wrong in the design of the wii u that is creating major issues. I don't believe this. I believe Nintendo have a designed a console at the absolute minimum price to merely match current gen performance overall. However as a wii u owner I'm more than happy to be proved wrong but the evidence surely dictates that of the possible range of gflops performance 176-352 gflops where once we were clinging on to believing it was 352 gflops infact the lower figure is much more realistic.

I guess an alternative view is that CPU is so weak that the compute functionality of the radeon gpu is being utilised for practically every game and compromising graphic output. I don't believe this myself. I also don't believe the wii u console is hard to develop for, I believe the complete opposite is true and I don't believe all developers are being lazy on wii u either.

Ultimately I believe the wii u is a low performance console designed to a specification for good quality cartoon graphics for Nintendo games and a huge profit for Nintendo and its shareholders (if it sold well). A continuation of their 'withered technology' philosophy that was so successful for gameboy, wii etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi

I'm not joking about Crysis, I used to be a mod at the InCrysis forums, so I spent allot of time with the origional game and helping people get the most out of their hardware to run it via .ini and driver tweaks.
Not to mention I actually had a Geforce 7950 GX2 back then.
Granted, I wasn't exactly trying to push any higher than 1280x1024@30fps and didn't bother with the Anti-Aliasing.

As for scaling, it works both ways on the PC. You can scale Oblivion from this:



To max graphics:


And even farther beyond (I was also a mod at the Oldblivion forums.):



Or lets use GTA IV as an example of not only being able to scale down games to run on weaker hardware, but in the opposite direct too?
Looks better than GTA 5.


Nothing like being part of the PC gaming master race, I can assure you. - Always have the best graphics.

As for throwing words like disingenious and biased at me, if you're attempting to get a negative reaction, it's not going to happen.

The topic is about efficiency. Not about scaling. I've already made my points. Which you didn't disprove.

Specs for specs, consoles are more efficient at running games. The OS footprint, among other things, is in part responsible for this. I gave you the point about Mantle. That it has the potential to turn this around. But we'll have to wait for when it comes out to really be the judge of this.

Build me a PC with 512GB of total RAM, with CPU and GPU comparable to those found in the PS3 and 360, and then show me a direct feed video of it. Otherwise, I don't see how you can make me believe you ran Crysis as well as on the 360 with such low PC specs. 

how many times much better than ps360 a system have to be to show graphics like the 2 wii U tech demos showed in E3 2011?

After seing that i just cant believe that wii U isnt at least 3 or 4 times more powerfull than ps360.

I did disprove, proof is in history of prior game releases, I did iterate upon this in my prior posts, if you need more information of what I have stated, feel free to use the worlds largest repository of information known to mand-kind, which is available at www.google.com
The reason why I brought up scaling is because you made it sound like you can only scale PC games downwards and not upwards, you can do both.

I'm not discounting that consoles are lighter, leaner machines later on in a generational cycle, but early on? Not so much. Oblivion, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Unreal Tournament 3 being prime examples of this, all of which perfectly happy running on GPU's and CPU's an entire generation older than the consoles.
There is actually a good explanation of this, during a new generation, Developers typically use High-level API's while they shift their game engines to the new hardware and drop support of the old hardware, thus that incurrs ovehead. (Hence why Oblivion performs worse on the Xbox 360 than a PC with half the GPU horsepower.)
Now as time goes on, Developers get more bold and they start writing to a low-level API, the bolder developers will go even closer to the metal than that.

Later on in the generation, it's a different story as PC games have higher image quality out of the box and no longer support older rendering paths such as Direct X 9, so they really can't be compared, Battlefield 3 being a prime example of this with better textures, lighting, shadows, tessellation, larger maps, more players amongst other things.

As for the OS, Windows XP which is the OS that was around during the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3's launch is actually a very lean OS, it can run rather happily with 70-90Mb of Ram which is competitive enough with the twins.
Windows 7/8 is even leaner than the Xbox One and Playstation 4's OS.

It's the API's holding things back at the moment, which is soon to be rectified, at-least for AMD users.

You edited your post.

You can't build a consumer grade PC with 512Gb of Ram and why would you want to? You would have to do some severe stripping back of a Windows XP install to make that kind of Ram amount have any weight, you're forgetting a PC does more at any one time than a console.
Sitting at the desktop mine is running my Keyboards screen with detailed information of Core temperatures, voltages, clockspeeds, fan speeds for both the CPU and GPU.
It's also showing me information on the weather, CPU, Network and GPU usage, with some servers waiting to be "woken up" via another device to begin transcoding, just to name a few, once a console can do everything my PC can do, then it would be a viable comparison point.

And why should I find you anything? Go do it yourself. I'm not about to help someone who ridicules others a favour.

Also, a 7950 GX2 is faster than the GPU in the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360, if you knew anything about hardware, you would know the obvious reason why.
Go ahead, do a youtube search for someone running Crysis on a Radeon x1950 XT or a Geforce 7950GT at 720P.

edit: In-fact, this has gone way off topic, so better to do it elsewhere.

Current PS3/360 games are built on 8 years of optimization for their specific hardware. Wii U hasn't even been out for a year yet, no console is maxed out that fast. You need exclusives designed around a console's  specific hardware to really show off what it can do, and no Wii U exclusive so far has aimed for high end graphics, they all adopt simpler styles that preclude technological boundary-pushing.

The Wii U has yet to have its Uncharted 2, its Gears of War, its Mario Galaxy, that one game that really puts its chipset through its paces and shatters its established graphical standards.

He was, is and will be a dick as evidenced by his "LOL fukc you, Nintendo fanboy, WiiU $99 Christmas 2014!!!111!"

We don´t owe him anything.

I can't answer that, because I simply don't know. I think the question that should be asked, is what functions are being used right now? It has a tessellator on fixed-function silicon, that's likely not being used right now, it has extra GPRs compared to a conventional R700 series GPU, all of that extra cache (Nintendo has mentioned that Wii U was heavily reliant on memory) how much of that is actually being used? Unfortunately with Wii U dev kits being badly documented, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of GX2 functions of Latte are being left unused. Like how Two Tribes suddenly discovered a hardware feature that reduced memory usage, and saved them 100MB. Was this feature not documented? How would they have just "discovered" something.

OK, then say it some other way. Saying "Off shelf part" makes it seem like Nintendo took a, for example, 5550, looked at it, and thought, "Hmm...this one's good, get rid of useless stuff and put eDRAM". They've worked on the console for over 3 years, that's a lot of time to have done all sorts of things to the GPU. 

eDRAM is 40nm Renesas eDRAM, we know information from this DRAM as it comes directly from the Renesas website, it should take around 220 million (+/- a few million), leaving 717 million for the GPU (depending on the million transistors per mm2). You're forgetting that off-shelf parts use die space for things you'll need for them being PC parts. Latte won't need those components and can easily be used for something else. And no, Latte has a DX 10.1 (plus extras) feature set-like compatibility for GX2 (based on documentation), it's not based on a 5000 series GPU (full DX 11 compatibility). It has an R700 base, and they modified it heavily from there. AMD does work with customers, and would allow modifications of stuff like shaders to work better on particular hardware.

And I never said that all of that 156.21mm2 was GPU logic, I already subtracted all of the eDRAM and I apologize for bad wording, I'm referring to the "logic" as anything usable to gaming, everything that's on the die that can technically be used for gaming purposes. However, eDRAM is also a factor for gaming too, conventional GPUs don't have that, and it can be very useful for increasing performance. You seem to be passing this off like it's disposable and not part of the entire GPU system. Heck, even for the CPU since it also has direct access. ROPs though, would not make a big difference in transistors, even if they added in 4 more. 

And I wasn't thinking about certain Wii-related functions in the GPU that are likely used for BC purposes, so I suppose it is possibly lower than what I have calculated. Though, going by Shiota's (from Iwata Asks) comment, he makes it seem like they simply took Wii U parts, and modified them so that they could be used for Wii BC as well. Of course, we don't know what exactly what they're talking about, but since they're talking about BC on Wii U for Wii, that could be the case. And I believe Marcan said that Wii emulation wasn't being run by an implanted "Hollywood GPU", so this could mean Wii GPU emulation is done from the same Wii U parts, meaning that not much would have been wasted for Wii GPU emulation at all, if any was. Though, if that's not true, that would put transistors at around 600 (Wii BC logic + gamepad compression shouldn't take up much space at 40nm) would still put it above some parts with more shaders. Plus, Latte is produced on a more mature 40nm process than any 5000 series GPU was....

You know, that "unusable logic" idea factors more for the commercial off-shelf GPU, a console GPU will not have as much if there's any, otherwise that'll be a terribly designed GPU if it has so much unused logic.

And no, we don't have a DF analysis, but so far, reviewers have complained about these framerate issues. If those framerate issues are there (unless the consoles playing those games are malfunctioning in some way), then I would blame the developers, not the hardware.