In my research, as I am interested about nintendo, I never found an official link by nintendo, who confirm all this interviews, articles, etc.
I mean most of them are busted... They speak about a 40nm gpu chip and r700 generation amd.. This info are totally fake because there is no chip by amd at 40nm with r700 code. They speak about nintendo Miyamoto, who said, wii U is not going to be better or compete the next gen.. But I searched the original interview by Gamespot at E3, and he is not saying this things! Nintendo never said "my system is better than yours or its worst than yours", its stupid to say this things after all( Because if Miyamoto says: Is not going to compete at all, next gen), nobody is going to buy it (its bad marketing). And originally Miyamoto said: I can’t tell you if wii U is better, much better or dramatically better than the current consoles in the market. The only thing we care is innovation, as we have the technology and we found ways to combine all this together, for the best HD experience and affordable for our customers. (it was something like that)
So I dont know how this information’s are coming up, about 2x 4x+++ I just need to hope, that it will be able to compete the next gen consoles as well, in matter of CPU, wii U is POWERFULL enough, as IBM announced that wii U use a power7 cpu, thats more than enough (its more like INTEL 980x 98GFLOPS real performance and not in theory cpu!!). Because it’s good to invest in a console for many years 6-7 years! And from the titles they announce in daily bases! I am surprised! That’s cool!! (lets just hope, that the news about ORIGIN are not true). here is some cpu guru guys (gamespot), that explain it better (and its facts, nor rumors) I will add it in spoiler, if its not allowed please delete it.
Spoiler
first of all, the PPE, as a processing unit in itself is pretty simple. In fact, it can only handle two instructions at the time, and it processes them strictly in order. The end result is a CPU that is technologically less advanced than Athlon64. Luckily, the PPE is not supposed to do (much) on its own: It has the SPEs to fall back on. Each SPE is a fully independent microprocessor... but even more simplified than the PPE. The other problem is that neither the PPE or the SPE has a branch predictor, which means that a lot of the functionality that would have been expectedly incorporated in the chip design, has to be provided by software. This, amongst many other reasons, is why Cell has a significantly different theoretical and actual GFLOPS calculation. Keep this in mind when looking at the following numbers, which show theoretical and actual numbers for various CPU designs.
CHIP NAME | CLOCK SPEED -> THEORETICAL -> [ACTUAL]
* : The Cell has an extremely inflated 'theoretical' peak performance, which is impossible to be achieved due to the restrictions on PPE (and the way it is issuing orders to each SPE), bandwidth, as well as the limitation of only executing 'in order' instructions. Hence the huge differences.
** : The Xenon essentially is the Cell PPEs minus the SPEs. It has many of the Cell limitations, but it alleviates them considerably by being a more 'traditional' multi-core architecture. Still, it's 'practical' GFLOPS number is contested. It is definately however not above the 57 GFLOPS ballpark, and more likely in the 30-40.
*** : The Power7 is a huge improvement in terms of chip design over both Xenon and Cell. In fact, it is a superior chip design even when compared to the current state of the art Intel Core i7 series, which it manages to 'beat' on the same clocks. Additionally, due to its capability to run asynchronous, out-of-order instructions, it manages to eradicate many of the problems Cell fell into, and therefore it comes very close to maximising its theoretical GFLOPS figure. Do note that Power7 was designed to be able to do many things at once without problem, and this explains its superior performance.
tl;dr version: Just the CPU inside the Wii U, running at the most basic (minimum) speed of 3 GHz per core, will still be able to outperform PS3 by a factor of at least 4:1.
A question, did Miyamoto made any more interviews about it and I missed it? And if we need to be fair with Nintendo, the differences between wii and wii U
In my research, as I am interested about nintendo, I never found an official link by nintendo, who confirm all this interviews, articles, etc.
I mean most of them are busted... They speak about a 40nm gpu chip and r700 generation amd.. This info are totally fake because there is no chip by amd at 40nm with r700 code. They speak about nintendo Miyamoto, who said, wii U is not going to be better or compete the next gen.. But I searched the original interview by Gamespot at E3, and he is not saying this things! Nintendo never said "my system is better than yours or its worst than yours", its stupid to say this things after all( Because if Miyamoto says: Is not going to compete at all, next gen), nobody is going to buy it (its bad marketing). And originally Miyamoto said: I can’t tell you if wii U is better, much better or dramatically better than the current consoles in the market. The only thing we care is innovation, as we have the technology and we found ways to combine all this together, for the best HD experience and affordable for our customers. (it was something like that)
So I dont know how this information’s are coming up, about 2x 4x+++ I just need to hope, that it will be able to compete the next gen consoles as well, in matter of CPU, wii U is POWERFULL enough, as IBM announced that wii U use a power7 cpu, thats more than enough (its more like INTEL 980x 98GFLOPS real performance and not in theory cpu!!). Because it’s good to invest in a console for many years 6-7 years! And from the titles they announce in daily bases! I am surprised! That’s cool!! (lets just hope, that the news about ORIGIN are not true). here is some cpu guru guys (gamespot), that explain it better (and its facts, nor rumors) I will add it in spoiler, if its not allowed please delete it.
Spoiler
first of all, the PPE, as a processing unit in itself is pretty simple. In fact, it can only handle two instructions at the time, and it processes them strictly in order. The end result is a CPU that is technologically less advanced than Athlon64. Luckily, the PPE is not supposed to do (much) on its own: It has the SPEs to fall back on. Each SPE is a fully independent microprocessor... but even more simplified than the PPE. The other problem is that neither the PPE or the SPE has a branch predictor, which means that a lot of the functionality that would have been expectedly incorporated in the chip design, has to be provided by software. This, amongst many other reasons, is why Cell has a significantly different theoretical and actual GFLOPS calculation. Keep this in mind when looking at the following numbers, which show theoretical and actual numbers for various CPU designs.
CHIP NAME | CLOCK SPEED -> THEORETICAL -> [ACTUAL]
* : The Cell has an extremely inflated 'theoretical' peak performance, which is impossible to be achieved due to the restrictions on PPE (and the way it is issuing orders to each SPE), bandwidth, as well as the limitation of only executing 'in order' instructions. Hence the huge differences.
** : The Xenon essentially is the Cell PPEs minus the SPEs. It has many of the Cell limitations, but it alleviates them considerably by being a more 'traditional' multi-core architecture. Still, it's 'practical' GFLOPS number is contested. It is definately however not above the 57 GFLOPS ballpark, and more likely in the 30-40.
*** : The Power7 is a huge improvement in terms of chip design over both Xenon and Cell. In fact, it is a superior chip design even when compared to the current state of the art Intel Core i7 series, which it manages to 'beat' on the same clocks. Additionally, due to its capability to run asynchronous, out-of-order instructions, it manages to eradicate many of the problems Cell fell into, and therefore it comes very close to maximising its theoretical GFLOPS figure. Do note that Power7 was designed to be able to do many things at once without problem, and this explains its superior performance.
tl;dr version: Just the CPU inside the Wii U, running at the most basic (minimum) speed of 3 GHz per core, will still be able to outperform PS3 by a factor of at least 4:1.
A question, did Miyamoto made any more interviews about it and I missed it? And if we need to be fair with Nintendo, the differences between wii and wii U
Always nice to read a balanced well thought out post. Anyway as was said before the article is silly flame bait, all the author wants to do is get more hits to the site.
actually the 4770 is 40nm on r700. But it is r740 no r770 like all the rumors are stating. But they could always do a die shrink with any of them. Most of the time these comments are taken out if context just for hits purposes.
actually the 4770 is 40nm on r700. But it is r740 no r770 like all the rumors are stating. But they could always do a die shrink with any of them. Most of the time these comments are taken out if context just for hits purposes.
actually the 4770 is 40nm on r700. But it is r740 no r770 like all the rumors are stating. But they could always do a die shrink with any of them. Most of the time these comments are taken out if context just for hits purposes.
It is not 4770 btw.. Nintendo always undertune the hardware for best stability, I think its extreme to add another 512mb of shared vram or 256... It is a chipset that supports 1gig of vram.. And from that point Nintendo trys to find the best amount for their games Ecxept if they use just the chipset and built a new card out of it. (not just tweaks)
Whats not a 4770. I was just stating that a 4770 is a r700 on a 40nm process. I didnt say that is what nintendo is using. They could take any of the chipsets andd shrink them. The amount of ram on the card doesnt matter, whether a 4770 has 1 gig, 2 gigs or 63 gigs, it doesnt matter, no matter what they use its going to be custom, so the memory config could be anything.
this article is the biggest BULL i have read about the wii u . he is obviously a nintendo hater. as he lied about nintendo and that they said that "the wii u will not compete with the next xbox and playstation and its ultra powerful hardware" which i find totally incorrect. That is a biased website , and biased websites are never a good thing .
PS - if you guys cant tell by the past consoles, if a console does around the same processing and has the same Confirmed resolution(im looking at you nextbox) then both consoles will have around the same games unless some ignorant studio can't except the fact that nintendo's hardware can run the same games possibly even faster if that rumored GPU is confrimed by MS( i know GPU isnt everything in a console) but all these idiots will be biting their tongue when the wii u is released next gen and surpassing the other consoles in the games department . and being on par with the next xbox ( and xbox usually has most third party games) so many people who like mario , zelda, metroid, kid icarus, star fox, etc . franchises from nintendo will probably notice the lack of the exclusive xbox games and buy a wii u ( if they're smart anyone) it will probably happen like this , if not then owell lol
Edited by hardcoreUfan, 04 February 2012 - 01:00 PM.
