globalisateur said:
drkohler said:
And we aleady have a die shot of the apu..
After looking at the WiiU die, this is a surprisingly "simple" to understand apu. Roughly 320mm^2 I'd say. |
On Beyond3d current estimates are around 344mm^2 which is similar to X1's APU (363mm^2). But compard to WiiU, most of the size is reserved to raw GPU and CPU game power (though the 8 cores jaguar CPU is a lot bigger than I thought).
http://www.chipworks.com/components/com_wordpress/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/FOR_BLOG_CXD90026G_die_151197_PolyB_branded.png
On WiiU, the GPU graphic raw part is really small compared to Wii backward hardware. I mean half of the GPU on WiiU is for the Wii BC because 32MB EDram + 3MB cache + rumored Wii GPU that don't really add flops but is used to emulate 24MB main 1tsram and vram/gpu of Wii. A pity, really, because everyone already has a Wii. The gpu die size is around 145mm^2, CPU around 32mm^2 both at 40nm. It won't prevent me to buy the console when it's cheaper with great Ninty exclusives though. But what a missed opportunity. I really think next Nintendo console won't have BC beause it really hampered Wii-U specs down and it's useless.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WBOifn4F0P0/URM8bz-1WkI/AAAAAAAAFPA/q8aNyhuh7GQ/s1600/wiiudie_blocks.jpg
|
A guy on Neogaf was talking about maybe Nintendo didn't make their GPU newer/better because of their "withered technology" philosophy. So i googled that.
Basically it's using old, "well understood" tech in some sort of product with some other innovation to disrupt the market (I think the Gameboy was an old example used,. obviously not very high tech but sold very well)
And think it worked perfect for them at least for the first 3 years of the Wii. Wii was just an overclocked, old tech, Gamecube, but it sold like hotcakes for 3 years and raked in the cash for Nintendo. So, Nintendo being stupid, they probably decided to double down on that "withered technology" strategy with Wii U.
So basically understand that old, crappy technology is actually a badge of honor for Nintendo. Even if they could get better tech for the same price they might not use it. They probably counted on the tablet to disrupt things with the Wii U and it didn't happen.
Totally agree with your BC comments. It's always been stupid. In order to make a streamlined design, you have to start from scratch. BC really ruins system designs, as you note with Wii U.
Plus every gen it gets harder. With PS2 it was feasible to just include a PS1 chip for BC. With PS3, it was harder to include a PS2. With PS4, no way they could include a PS3 chipset without significant problems.
360 and PS3 are old, hot tech. They use like 90 watts even now, PS4 and X1 themselves dont use much more than that despite being 10X as powerful. And emulation is an even bigger hassle.
