44 replies to this topic

[MorbidGod]

No offense 3Dude but you will probably say good things about the Wii U no matter what. Also, I find it funny that after we find out the cpu specs are somewhat disappointing, you say even better things about it.

Sorry if I don't understand correctly. You will still probably own me on this subject, I just don't think it will be over 1x as powerful as the 360's cpu.

This isn't my love for Nintendo that makes me say this, but more of a love for technology that makes me say what I am about to say.

I have said it before, and i will say it again. My phone - the Samsung Epic Touch 2 - has a more powerful processor then the Intel P4, which was clocked at higher then 2.0 ghz usually. And that is on a phone.

Just because the CPU is currently clocked pretty low (probably underclocked) doesn't mean it can't keep up with the next gen. And remember, the Xbox 3 could end up with a low heat, ARM processor. Which means lower clocked. Abd Sony can't afford to spend too much money on specs, so assuming they spend money on some sort of controller with a screen on it, they won't hae the R&D money for a better processor/GPU combo.

So again - this isn't the end of the world. I believe it is even possible, if I am right on the CPU being underclocked, that a firmware update could make the CPU at a higher clock (which I think there is a 5% chance of happening) but it is worth mentioning.

So ... lets just wait and see what Nintendo's baby can do before saying all this doom and gloom.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

I'm not saying clock speed is all that matters. A Core i5/Core i7 at 1.2GHz could probably beat the 360's cpu at 3.2GHz. But those are great chips.

[MorbidGod]

I'm not saying clock speed is all that matters. A Core i5/Core i7 at 1.2GHz could probably beat the 360's cpu at 3.2GHz. But those are great chips.

So are you saying the Wii U doesn't have a good chip? That is my point, we don't know anything to base any kind of judgement. As you just stated, clock speed alone doesn't mean anything.

So as I said many times before, lets wait and see. Is that really so hard?

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

Don't get all bossy on me for having an opinion. I just think a non-expensive IBM chip won't be any better than a Core i5 at the same clock speed.

[3Dude]

Don't get all bossy on me for having an opinion. I just think a non-expensive IBM chip won't be any better than a Core i5 at the same clock speed.

Xenon isnt a core i5. Its a pretty garbage derivitive of a g5.... Which was the garbage processor that was the last straw that cost ibm apple.

Am I mixing you up with someone else? I thought you knew this already about the 750 vs xenon? I could have sworn it was you.

Edited by 3Dude, 01 December 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

The Wii U cpu is a fast architecture that is slow through clock speed. The 360 cpu is a slow architecture that is fast through clock speed.

[dyatir]

I don't care about specs!
The reason why I will buy a Wii U is the exclusives and the innovation.

[Soul]

I don't care about specs!
The reason why I will buy a Wii U is the exclusives and the innovation.

Then don't stay on the Hardware section, because that is mostly what we talk about here.

[Happy Monk]

I think the original comments of the Wii U being about 1.5 XBOX 360s still seems right. And that is fine by me!
But, seriously, the clock speed is low (too low really), because even if it is just as good (or better than, or slightly worse) than the 360's processor, all of it doesn't matter. What's important is if this will stop the Wii U getting the third party support it needs a couple of years down the line.

[MorbidGod]

Don't get all bossy on me for having an opinion. I just think a non-expensive IBM chip won't be any better than a Core i5 at the same clock speed.

I am not getting all bossy. I am just tired of people saying the Wii U is weak, basing it off pratically nothing. And you do seem to be going back and forth here. This post you said the Wii U won't have a better CPU than the Intel i5 (which I agree could be true), but then you say in your next post the Wii U CPU is fast in Architecture, which again is a baseless (but probably true) assumption.

My opinion is simple ... don't have one until I see what the Wii U can do compared to the others.

I think the original comments of the Wii U being about 1.5 XBOX 360s still seems right. And that is fine by me!
But, seriously, the clock speed is low (too low really), because even if it is just as good (or better than, or slightly worse) than the 360's processor, all of it doesn't matter. What's important is if this will stop the Wii U getting the third party support it needs a couple of years down the line.

You got it! That is what matters. And I don't think it will. I base this on low expectations on what the others are going to do. If they blow it out of the water with uber powerful cpu and gpu Nintendo is in trouble.

But nothing points to that.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

The Wii U supposedly has a blazing fast architecture, and the CPU would be fast at 3.2GHz (almost a fact). However because it's only 1.2GHz, it's somewhat weak (which is arguable).

[MorbidGod]

The Wii U supposedly has a blazing fast architecture, and the CPU would be fast at 3.2GHz (almost a fact). However because it's only 1.2GHz, it's somewhat weak (which is arguable).

And that's my point! Supposedly means it's based off nothing. I'm not talking rumors, but actual comments made by Nintendo or an actual developer going on record. Low clock speed, yes we have that on record. But the actual power of the CPU is debatable. We get mixed reactions, depending on who you talk to. So really, we don't know.

What we do know, is the clock speed is low. Assuming this hackers method is ligit. Which it seems to be.

So until we see a ground up game by a third party or Nintendo, made for the Wii U, i wouldn't assume anything.

[3Dude]

The Wii U supposedly has a blazing fast architecture, and the CPU would be fast at 3.2GHz (almost a fact). However because it's only 1.2GHz, it's somewhat weak (which is arguable).

if 750 architecture COULD be clocked up to 3ghz it would desroy i7. In fact, the entire icore family would have never existed since apple would have never ditched ibm for intel.

Unfortunately, the 750 series physically cant be clocked that high (yet), they catastrophically fail well before that.

Another problem is, although we now know ibm in fact DIDNT retire the 750 line, it has not documented any releases past 2004's GX (3 generations past broadways CL, smoked the crap out of the G4 computer, and was slightly stronger than a single core of a g5), only taking on custom customers for the line (like sending a specialized version of the chip to mars.)

So even though its still a 750 family and is binary compatablw with broadway and gekko. We dont know what all they have done. Although i do know paired singles is still the best they have in a still 3 stage fp pipeline.... so still weak there... They probably have more than 32 fp registers now.

I do have extensive knowledge of broadway though, from official documentation.
And it rapes xenon clock for clock core for core in every category except fp, which it isnt strong in.

For example, xenon can execute 2 instructions per core (1 per thread) for a total of six instructions per clock.

Broadway can execute six instructions per clock (including 2 integers) on its single core.

Just taking the custom 750cl broadway and making it tricore (which is not what happened)....

We get 18 instructions per clock to Xenons six.

And thats not even getting into benefits like OoO benefits or a seriously rocking branch predictor.

[GAMER1984]

"750 on the other hand was never available in 45nm and simply doesn't support SMP. Not to mention no 750 ever used eDRAM. The chip Nintendo uses might be cheap to manufacture as it's small (though still a lot bigger than three 476FPs), but it came with significant R&D expenses as it's very different from any off-the-shelf design".

[Bunkei]

sooo .. if it's a 750 chip, why would IBM say that it's a custom "Power-based" CPU? Why wouldn't they say it's PowerPC based? At first the IBM peeps on twitter said the CPU was based on the power 7, but then changed it to say Power. I don't see how this all fits together with my small mind unless it's so damn customized that it defies all categorization (?)

Edited by Bunkei, 01 December 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[GAMER1984]

VERY customized

[3Dude]

sooo .. if it's a 750 chip, why would IBM say that it's a custom "Power-based" CPU? Why wouldn't they it's PowerPC based? At first the IBM peeps said the CPU was based on the power 7, but then changed it to say Power. I don't see how this all fits together with my small mind unless it's so damn customized that it defies all categorization (?)

Because power pc IS powerbased. They all run off the power isa instruction core.

Its unlike any 750 series thats publicly existed before, the most advanced 750 ibm announced was 2004's 750gx, which was a couple gens ahead of broadway (750cl), could be clocked up to 1Ghz and had 40 million transistors to broadways 20.... But it never supported simultaneous paralell processing (multicore). No known 750 has ever done this. Its not feasible in the design. So on that front, nintendo could, in a VERY weaselly underhanded fashion say it was sort of technically new.

The p7 comparison.... heres my scenario: came from the edram technology. Its the same proprietary high density 6 way per cell bussed edram technology that made power 7 possible. No other processors use it. Yet.

This edram tech was highlighted in the wii u press release. Some website picked up on it, erronepusly mixed it up with another ram technology unique to p7, the massive 32Mb l3 cache.

IBM watson responded, yes same 45nm process, features the same technology as p7 (proprietary edram) and silicon on insulator design (its.... a microchip).

Through multiple repeats. Of tweets slip up came of same power 7 chips instead of features same technology. Likely because the feed is handled by 2 seperate people, an ibm engineer, and.... A marketing head.

Statement retracted, only taljs about official original press release.

Alternate scenario:

Ibm: Yup its power 7!
everybody:'cool!'
IBM: 750!!!!! *troll face*.

[Bunkei]

Because power pc IS powerbased. They all run off the power isa instruction core.

Its unlike any 750 series thats publicly existed before, the most advanced 750 ibm announced was 2004's 750gx, which was a couple gens ahead of broadway (750cl), could be clocked up to 1Ghz and had 40 million transistors to broadways 20.... But it never supported simultaneous paralell processing (multicore). No known 750 has ever done this. Its not feasible in the design. So on that front, nintendo could, in a VERY weaselly underhanded fashion say it was sort of technically new.

The p7 comparison.... heres my scenario: came from the edram technology. Its the same proprietary high density 6 way per cell bussed edram technology that made power 7 possible. No other processors use it. Yet.

This edram tech was highlighted in the wii u press release. Some website picked up on it, erronepusly mixed it up with another ram technology unique to p7, the massive 32Mb l3 cache.

IBM watson responded, yes same 45nm process, features the same technology as p7 (proprietary edram) and silicon on insulator design (its.... a microchip).

Through multiple repeats. Of tweets slip up came of same power 7 chips instead of features same technology. Likely because the feed is handled by 2 seperate people, an ibm engineer, and.... A marketing head.

Statement retracted, only taljs about official original press release.

Alternate scenario:

Ibm: Yup its power 7!
everybody:'cool!'
IBM: 750!!!!! *troll face*.

Soo ... what DOES it share with the 750?? Because at this point, you've pointed out the differences (45 nm design, supports SPP, uses EDRAM). Is Nintendo/IBM trolling those like you who are experts by using the name 750 when it shares almost nothing with the actual chip that came out in 2004?

[dyatir]

Then don't stay on the Hardware section, because that is mostly what we talk about here.

I meant that the main reasons I want the wii u is the exclusives but I still want to see the specs and if it will support the next gen graphics engines.

[MorbidGod]

Soo ... what DOES it share with the 750?? Because at this point, you've pointed out the differences (45 nm design, supports SPP, uses EDRAM). Is Nintendo/IBM trolling those like you who are experts by using the name 750 when it shares almost nothing with the actual chip that came out in 2004?

Pretty much. They def used a lot of money researching how to pack sll that technology on a pratically dead CPU. It would have been easier to just use a POWER7, but probably not cheaper, considering that is very expensivd.

In the end, its radically differrnt from the Broadway, and I wouldnt put it in the same bracket.