3dude, you are a delusional fanboy who has no sense of reality.  The wii u's cpu architecture dates back to the last century and it was powerful then but things have moved on. The PS3 and 360 cpu's don't compare well to the wii u cpu on a mhz vs mhz basis but then both ps3 and 360 are running their cpu's at 3.2ghz not 1.25ghz and the ps3 has 2 threads and 7 support processors all running at 3.2ghz not 3 at 1.25ghz. The 360 has 6 threads at 3.2ghz in total not 3 at 1.25ghz. Clearly if the wii u cpu was at 3.2ghz then it would be a different story but its running at close to 1/3rd the speed with just 3 processes. Your view that somehow a very dated cpu x3 run at a very low speed is somehow a competitive cpu design in 2013 is totally unrealistic and only acceptable to the most demented of fanboys. 

 

The PS4 and xbox one have all the advantages of an even more modern gpu than wii u so their weak cpu performance still represents a huge increase over ps3, 360 and wii u in real terms and they are still at least 4x as powerful as wii u in integer performance and a huge massive increase in performance in other areas.

 

You need to look at what the wii u is achieving in performance. It is ridiculous to make your claims when the wii u is still getting beaten by 360 and PS3 in performance terms. There is no golden horizon to come when suddenly the wii u will outperform 360 and PS3 for all games and go on to challenge xbox one and ps4. The 360 and PS3 still have more cpu performance than wii u and where games need this the wii u will underperform. For gpu centric games the wii u will be able to make a small step ahead of ps3 and 360 but its a marginally increase. The wii u is using a 45nm process, Sony had already moved to 40nm for the rsx sometime before the wii u was released. Everything we know about the wii u including developer leaks like the metro developer stating the wii u has a 'horrible slow cpu', performance, power consumption, fabrication process, x-ray image examination supports the view that the wii u performs to current gen performance.

 

Surely you realise its utterly moronic to create a fantasy image of the wii u technically that has zero connection with the reality of how wii u games are performing. It's also pointless attacking me when the information I'm posting is widely available from a huge number of sources where as the 'wii u is actually very powerful' articles are strangely absent on the internet.

way to put the blinders on dude.  Like the  architecture  (which is NOT 100 years old) has just been in idle for a decade and a half. But then again.... the new xbox and ps3 are using  architecture  traced back to the k9 which is also a decade and a half old. Just brcause something is based on older architecture does not make it the same, limited to, or less powerful than newer architectures.

I think our argument gets lost in Desert Punks straw man argument. So let's be clear:

The Wii U is capable of producing some amazing visuals. The Wii U is underpowered by the newer entries coming into this new generation of consoles, but you won't be able to tell the difference. Funny thing is, as 3Dude pointed out, Desert Punk agrees with us. He keeps saying the Wii U is 3 - 4 times powerful than PS3, talks about how the machine isn't able to produce better visuals than the last generation. Then uses the same measurement with how powerful the PS4 and X1 are compared to Wii U, and then says oh but the PS4 can produce jaw dropping visuals.

I'm sorry. If your expecting that from any console this generation, then your going to be disappointed.

So our main argument is two fold. Yea, the Wii U is more powerful than the last generation. That has all ready been shown since EVERY launch title uses TWO of the THREE cores Wii U has to produce what the last generation did with a faster core. Imagine if all three where used, and they used the GPU more? Second, the X1 and PS4 are less powerful than everyone thinks. More powerful than Wii U, and thus previous generation too? Of course. It's newer technology. A weak CPU with a powerful GPU. AMD sucks at CPU (they are budget CPUs usually) but they rock at video cards thanks to ATi. IMB however doesn't suck at making CPU's, but development of the Wii U CPU ended sometime in 2012, while I bet AMD is still developing their APU for both consoles.

So that's what we are saying.


Also, AC3 didn't run well on the PS3 or 360 well. It had frame rate issues and pushed the last generation close it's max. And the Wii U was able to run that with two cores. I'd agree with you, it's impressive.

If he thinks that  the wii u is 3-4 times as powerful as the xbox 360 and ps3 what does he think  that makes the newer consoles

bearing in mind that a late last year nvidia announced that  PC's has just passed the last gens  by 10 times(entering pcs in the relm of  emulation for those consoles). And  the ps4 and  x1 are  most argueably not in the same range as those

(for arguments sake,  my 2[a year before the nvidia announcemnt] year old gpu has 2.4tflops and the ps4 is said to have 1.84tflops)

i would also like  all of you to mind that a large  portion of the power of each device will be locked to certain features such as streamins support (which is a intensive task that cannot be left unchecked, les you expect the console preform diffrently  with it on vs off) also mind  console develops  would (or rather should) want the console to run the same at all times, allwoing the share service to be used without slowing down any game.

Source please?  I havent seen that yet, that would change my opinion quite a bit. 

no source, its a educated  guess   factoring die size and  fab

man  neogaf  is making themselves look like tools over this. Make of that what you will.

Consider if you shoved code for the wii u architecture Into the 360. It probably wouldn't run at all.

We are talking fundamental architectural differences. You'd have to really rework the code for x1 and ps4 as well.

And no wii u ports of old games look worse, no matter how poorly the port was done. Not that I've seen anyway.

I don't know if the wii u will be neck and neck with the ps4, but it will be very competitive. Many games will likely look the same on both systems. The wii u will likely have more loading times due to the ram amount, but the processing is excellent and the ram layout very efficient.



Jaguars kinda suck actually. But that's why there are 8 of them. Lol

I'm sure both companies would have loved to go power or intel, but amd likely gave them a sweet deal to go apu.

... well  no one wanted to go Nvidia, so that would rule out intel anyway.

plus in my  experience,  intel plays rough.

Not really. Intel chips work with amd GPu.

And amd works fine with power too.

I'm guessing that nvidia was just too expensive. And so was intel.

thats not the point, maybe you should rethink what i said. Ibm and  Amd would be fine but Amd would  most certainly not work with Intel, the company who activly (and illegially)  tried(and may still) force them off the cpu market.

actually things are getting kind of rough for silicon on insulator technology. We are reaching the physical limits of dennard scaling.

You cant scale to the molecular level with current material technology.

Thats why the ghz race ended, and we went multicore. And thanks to amdahls law, multicore also has a cap. We need more powerful individual cores again....

We need a new material technology to get back on track to the rate of improvement that was enjoyed when moores law was still in effect.

It will come.

Yeah  one they start wokring with graphene we will start  reaching  higher. But we would also start reaching the maximum possible,  probably wont start at 1 atmom thick off the bat with it though
 
 
Also i would like to note about DDR3 vs GDDR5. Not many people know this but, DDR3 when it first came out, even with its  much higher speeds  accually preformed  the same (sometimes with a unnotceable speedup) thanks to  the timings going up, sure the speed when up but thanks to all the timings going down so did the  ability to move small code changes  ihn a timly manner, which  luckily since the  timings were only small changes did not  cripple CPU's. Now Cpu's are designed to work wioth these slightly higher  timings, although its not perfect.
 
Basicly  by increasing the  speed of data, we lower timings also known as latancy. Higher speeds are great for moving large single packages of data, sure it would start slowly but since it is moving the  large data package, it would not really matter since it will be ending that much quicker.
 
 
Now comes in GDDR5 named for being used in graphic cards nearly exclusively.Great for moving textures around since they are gennerally the large files. But it comes at a price of high latancy that can cause hiccups crippleing cpu's and game mechanics. Unless the cpu has extensive changes to overcome the high latancy, i personally would go with DDR3 atm.  Sony just wants some numbers to flash in peoples faces.

It has nothing to do with losing money. Their silicon budgets for the internals of the consoles are a determinate factor for price point, they aim to make their money back some way, and the gaming market expanded by a factor of three last generation thanks to "casual gaming" so once the software library is up to snuff console makers will make their money back, except for Sony, they still haven't made their money back on PS3.

Diminishing returns isn't something that goes away because you don't believe in it. GPU makers put out high end cards for 1000s of dollars in some cases that have more shaders and more RAM than mainstream or budget cards, but all they can do is a few more frames or a higher benchmark score.

Similar to the CPU "add more GHz" then "add more cores" GPU makers are saying "add more shader cores" then "add more RAM" "wider memory bus". The problem is that more shader cores and more RAM aren't getting the same performance gains they used to, because as these systems get more complex and powerful, the graphics engines that run on them become more efficient and scalable. Meaning the engines can do more with less hardware, but having more hardware is no benefit to anyone.

Every generation would need to scale by a larger factor than the last. This generation would need to see about 100 times the last to see a  eyepopping diffrence, then the next would need 10 times that to top its last,  meaning about 1000 times its last. The next generations will be funny to see, thanks to the internet and its  infinant "wisdom"

It is rather comical.  The same people that were bashing the Wii U for its tri core low clocked cpu, who were trying to convince everyone that this would cripple the system in the physics aned AI department truly became silent once the Jaguar cpu was announced.  Its amazing how the CPU can go from be vital to a next gen system to nobody wanting to even talk about it.  Now its all about the ram and GPU and suddenly CPU is an afterthought.  Why was it so important when everyone assumed the PS4 and X1 would have high end cpu's but now that it has a tablet cpu its of no consequence?  Its pretty comical.  Not to mention that the Wii U cpu is pretty darn efficient, its definately no I5 or I7 cpu, but its definately far more capable than any of the Gaf haters wanted to admit.

 

The developer not correctly using the huge caches properly is not a hardware problem, its a coding problem.  If the developer isnt making 100% use of the large caches , then dont blame the hardware.  If your constatly stalling the cpu with cache misses, and you have 3MB of cpu cache at your disposal, then the developer needs to look for the problem, because the CPU should not be completeing work faster than you code fills the cache.  Same goes for the edram in the GPU, dont complain because your code doesnt make good use of the edram.  The GPU is centered around this very tight memory management.  I dont think very many developers have really grasped how this works, but those that do will find huge performance gains. 

we still do not know  %100 what the cpu or gpu is. Hell its not even been testef or  performance. How anyone is accually comeing up with the numbers they are getting from just the  scans is a tad silly to be throwing around as fact. So saying its not as strong as a i5 or i7 is still a little premature.

It has nothing to do with anger. Hes one of the very few providing facts. You should be tling desert punk to relax. He's the one who can't rest until he's saturated the forum with misinformation.

Instead of making judgement calls about a forum members' mood, why don't we look at the facts and history.

Desert punk has a history of posting crap that is proven wrong all the time. 3dude has a history of posting truth that exposes the anti-Nintendo bias of those spewing misinformation and in some cases, complete fabrications.

3dude then has to correct the same guy countless times and the same guy still has the nerve to keep posting, calling names and act like he's some kind of authority when in reality, when in reality, his joke status is well known these days.

If someone who has to repeat themselves too often gets a bit cranky, deal with it. That's life. Youd be irritated too if you were constantly argued with, misrepresented by, and called names by some fool who wanted to convince everyone that 2+2=0.5


Then maybe... You don't want to be in the hardware thread?... There is another one called Games and Software...

its why i dont like to talk about this stuff, for one  im not allowed to say TOO much, and if i did  it would probaly lead to thing i rather not deal with. I want to keep my name clean.

You already said too much, WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE! 

I am Cloud.

Jaguar is an x86 chip, meaning that it is generally the same architecture as the first x86-64 chips of 2006. Anything else would be incompatible with Windows and such unless Microsoft rewrote the os for that platform.

Espresso, while being based on the Power architecture, is under the full control of Nintendo which can tailor the chip to handle the exact workload that gaming requires. X86 on the other hand has to be more of a generic chip that handles anything from gaming to daemons/services to Microsoft Office, meaning that not all of it's processing abilities are directly usable for gaming.

Microsoft Office for Xbox One

An achievement/trophy/accomplishment system similar to those on Xbox Live and Steam. Cross-game chat would also be really cool. 

As i dev i say no thanks, as a gamer i say NO thanks

With Sony trying to push developers to use the dull capacity of their blu ray discs, it's possible.

accually the  blueray player in the PS3 was so slow, devs generally had to write some files to the system disk or duplicate often read files multiple times on the blueray.

I'm sure you know this, but it still multitasks well though. I was using the browser while playing Super Metroid VC, switching back and forth without disrupting the game progress.

That may be part of why the Wiiu  locks half the ram to  the OS, since the browser DOES allow 6 tabs, which can possibly eat up quite a bit of ram, and it has to do it without eating into the game resorses.

Um, the PS4 is more powerful than the XBox One. By at least 50 percent it looks like.

ya but who knows how much will accually focus on games.... i mean  there was alot in the Ps3 that devs could not touch.... and i mean  lots.

Well the PS4 isn't using Cell, so I don't know what couldn't be touched.

people like to say sony lied about the systems 1.8gflops.... but that was not the gpu number.. that was the cpu. Which was hardly touchable by devs. 

I have not been able to look at any dev machines for the newer stuff (with an exception) but it worries me with what they are saying

No. http://www.ps3rules.com/ps3-specs.htm It's the GPU. And its 1.8 TFLOPS.

they may have reported that, but the Cell CPU is rated for 1.8 gflops  by IBM

No, check the tape, they said rsx was capable of 1.8TFLOPS, not cell

Im not talking about what they said, im saying they ... mistakenly  transfered the number from one part to another.

There is no documents saying what you are saying. So until a source is quoted, which shouldn't be hard since Sony is open on specs, please show us.

I could be wrong, but everything I remember and have looked at says something different .

http://savannah.gate...EC08_Stef_2.pdf

shows the cell getting about 1.8gflops

im just assuming that they took that and applied it to their gpu and called it tflops.

even tho that cpu could easily do far more that was the rating of 1 spu. seems to much of a coinidence that they came out saying that same 1.8 abotut such a weak gpu that could never have came close.

the gpu from tests i have done i was able to squeeze around 170 gflops tops.

but aparently its been reported that it had alot locked away as it was  rated for 400glops (top possible)

so innefficent and locked parts...  either way 1.8 tflops was far off  what was possible.

1.8GFLOPS isn't the same as 1.8 TFLOPS. Which is what Sony said the RSX and PS4 GPU can achieve.

http://playstation.a...csDetails_3.htm

I said it was a mistake not that they are the same. There is no way that  both parts  even at their maximums will come close to 1.8tflops together

That's our point, but that isn't what Sony is saying.

my point is they probably mistook something and  said it wrong....   its anyones guess.

either way,  dont epect  being able to use   all of the PS4's resourses.

It wasn't a mistake, they were marketing the theoretical peak power of the RSX, which is 1.8TFLOPS, as real world operations. In practical results, though, the RSX didn't come close to those numbers at all.

i do not know where they think they got those peaks.... seeing as  the numbers  ive found  dont come close to that, and they are theory

The cell as spec'd by IBM is decent. And THEORETICAL performance is interesting depending on how it's "calculated." The ps3 cell beats itself up. It's impossible for it to even think so lofty.

Even so, the cell was designed for 8 spe's. ps3 has one gimped due to early bad yield. So it's taken down quite a bit on the vector front as well.

ya cell is said to get 1.8 per spe.... so they say

His auto-tuned voice bothers me.

 

Can't stand it, but I like his stuff.

Not worth hearing his crappy voice though.

thats not auto tune thats altered pitch

To auto-tune is to alter pitch....

well auto tuning is done by altering pitch but it is don't beyond just  lowering or raising pitch. it does it automatically , compared to his manual pitch control he used to set it randomly higher. auto tuning is used to keep perfect pinch to music though audio processing to match to an already set tone. So although auto tuning does alter pitch..... I am correct in saying that is not auto tuning, just a simple altered pitch.