Another thread of fanboy crap with no connection with the real world.

The wii u is in the same area of performance as ps3/360 and they have as much claim to being next gen as wii u does.

Again for people stupid enough to read these threads and actually believe them you need to look elsewhere like eurogamer faceoffs, lens of truth etc and comparison reviews in general.

As for the comment about the gamecube vs ps2 again you can't just say the gamecube is superior full stop. Each format has advantages and disadvantages. PS2 has 5.1 sound not 2 channel sound, it has 32bit colour not 24bit to enable some good transparency effects, bloom lighting etc, it has full size dvds not mini-dvds. Games like Gran Turismo on ps2 are 1080i. Clearly the Gamecube has other huge advantages over ps2 like a massive more powerful cpu and more powerful gpu in most areas. Certain games will have advantages on different hardware depending on what resources they need.

It is so sad to see the denial of reality in this forum. You are so out of sync with real world views of the wii u techically that you see on multiformat forums.

The answer to the question posed by this thread is that the few PS4 or xbox one games that get downported to 360, PS3 or wii u will be very similar across 360, PS3 and wii u with a greater chance that they will perform a little bit better on 360 and PS3. As has been the situation so far.  The only real chance of the wii u version performing between 360/PS3 and PS4/Xbone is if its a game that has lower cpu requirements but relies on more memory being available.

I hope when Watchdogs comes out and we see how the wii u performs (very close or below 360/PS3) we can stop half the unicorn tongue on these threads.

What about putting Dragon Quest x on that list. There's hope of a western release.

I voted for Windwaker. I played the original on gamecube and it is a truly terrific and magical game. Under appreciatted by the masses due to the low sales of the gamecube console and sadly never updated to a wii game with motion controls.

There is much to see and do with cartoon graphics that are a joy to the eyes.

I'm pretty biased though as when I first got the game I'd just got my first projector, a Panasonic AE100 and a component cable for my gamecube. I had the sound piped through a home cinema system and the whole experience was enriched by an image that spread across a whole wall almost.

Ultimately though it always depends on what games you really enjoy. You should state what are your favourite games as that helps weight the choice to a game you are more likely to enjoy.

Many face offs have already reported many minor differences in graphics. Yes the main graphic assets are teh same but that doesn't mean all sorts of other images factors don't come into play as well. Not only can lighting and other issues but often some graphic effects can be simplified or simply removed in some versions.

Assasin's Creed 3 looks like this on wii u;

Compared to 360;

If you read the face offs you often get a mixed bag of good and bad and how each system produces a final image.

Whether people care about the differences is another matter but there are a huge number of factors on how games which should look identical due to shared assets can actually look different in use.

Sometimes the resolution is lower. Sonic transformed on wii u is at a lower resolution than 360 and PS3.

In Darksiders the graphics were simplified for wii u with some missing features;

http://images.euroga.../0/WiiU_027.png

http://images.euroga...7/0/360_027.png

http://images.euroga...7/0/PS3_027.png

There is one wii u game which has more pixelated shadows and others with weaker lighting. Some games have shorter life graphic effects that are cpu intensive.

This is why I think the wii u has been very disappointing hardware because in such situations you expect the wii u version to show enhancement over the older models but if anything the 360 is multiformat king and the ps3 still overall shows it is superior to wii u graphically.

My expectations of the wii u was that such ports would be enhanced on wii u with additional graphic detail and improvements not as often is the case small downgrades graphically and lower frame rates to go with it.

Yes I went with the hut. They recently sent me a 10% off code so used that to get it for £36. I also went through quidco so may get a few extra pence off. Sods law a better deal will appear within hours now.

Genuine question? No trolling? That's not Punk!

Your definition of trolling needs some correction. Stating the wii u is weak hardware when I can clearly see the hardware is weak myself and just about all the game reviews support this view is hardly trolling. I don't think I can be considered trolling mentioning the poor sales of the wii u. I don't think anyone is in denial about that. I'm certainly not happy about it after buying a wii u. 

I am actually a wii u owner who has about 8 games and is supporting Nintendo by buying a console and games for it. I have to say though Windwaker is by far the wii u game I am most interested in so far and one I want day one. Then Mario kart in the new year.

Does it look worse on wii u, I couldn't really tell by those images. I was quite pleased reading through it to see the wii u had no screen tearing and still a good frame rate but then the bombshell struck with the awful load times.

I mean come on the wii u has 1GB of memory and a very fast optical drive why is it slower? I can only guess it was due to uncompressing but then perhaps if they put more thought into it they could have optimised it more.

This feels like a game that could have been an outright victory for wii u even if the graphics may have had a few minor weaker bits and it was ruined by the loading time issue.

I'd also like to know the native resolution of each version. Not keen on 1080p upscaling being used to as the resolution. In which case every 360 game is in 1080p and the poor old ps3 can only muster 720p a lot of the time due to the lack of an upscaler built in. Not fair at all especially as all1080p televisions will upscale to 1080p themselves anyway. Yes I know upscaling in the console is better than the tv most of the time but not all the time as some televisions/projectors have some pretty amazing upscaling circuitry.

Que people saying "Of course, it's not last gen!"
After saying for the past year "Barely as powerful as xbox 360"

Can you clarify this point? Are you saying this shows the wii u weaker or stronger as to be honest as with most  wii u titles its hard to tell. No screen tearing great, horrible load times bad. It's hard to know what to prefer screen tearing or long load times. I believe there is also a missing feature or two in the wii u version.

All I care about at the moment is Zelda Windwaker and won't be buying this game until it hits the bargain bucket.

Again the real evidence is how games perform which is where the wii u is really struggling.

As for your other comments they seem to basically state the wii u achieves high performance despite weak specs where as the 360 and PS3 perform poorly with their stronger specs. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your opinion.

No one is under any illusion that the wii u can' perform graphically to a higher standard than 360/PS3 for games with low cpu requirements.

Yes the wii u has 32MB of video memory and yes that gives the console a huge advantage that the frame buffer resides in that memory. Many 360 games also have the full frame buffer in its 10MB and the ps3 is split with 256MB video memory and 256MB main memory each with its own bandwidth. The wii u doesn't hold all the cards when it comes to good design. Each of these consoles were designed to perform as well as possible. The PS3 may have had little regard for the developers who faced a steep learning curve but later games clearly show it to be very powerful and impressive when properly programmed. All 3 consoles are excellent but both ps3 and 360 were limited by the technology available at the time where as the wii u is limited by extreme cost cutting but end performance is much the same across all 3 formats.

This is clearly not important really though. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Capcom are a very good developer with some strong impressive titles under their belt and with an improved gpu in the wii u they still couldn't get the wii u operating at a good frame rate for Resident Evil Revelations. It can't even match the outgoing older formats. While your views may be believed here by other fanboys they have no credibility anywhere else. There is nothing complicated in the wii u design. It is not a ps3 if anything like the 360 it has hit the ground running with good performance for its spec. If anything its even easier to develop for than the 360. It's easy out of order CPU design, the fact the GPU provides the required floating point performance and reduces load on the cpu. There is plenty of memory and no restriction on shoehorning the framebuffer into video memory. Its an excellent design on many levels but ultimately limited by a weak cpu and a gpu that is only marginally ahead of the 360.

Anyway as previously stated the reviews tell the real story of wii u.

We will have to agree to differ. I'm certainly not going to form an opinion without seeing the evidence of the engine running preferably actually playing it myself. Xenoblade looked great in scope but was actually very limited in how you interacted with the environment. Incredibly basic compared to some of the engines on 360 and PS3 like Skyrim with mountain clouds, running water, birds, multiple characters, weather, physics and AI. At this point I don't know if 'X' will be somewhere between the 2 or exceed them. I've seen nothing so far on wii u that gets even close to skyrim in game engine complexity.

Advice: complaining about Nintendo on a Nintendo fansite doesn't make you sound smart or biting, it mostly just makes you come off as annoying.

That's the problem then the forum needs to be renamed to the 'No Criticism Nintendo Fanboy Site' because it just says Wii U forums on my screens which implies people can debate different opinions hopefuly without lame ass postings like yours that attack the poster rather than write about the issues facing Nintendo. Also fanboys are widely regarded as extremely annoying due to their extreme bias anyway and I'm definitely not a fanboy because I see absolutely no reason to be loyal to any one gaming console brand.

I still don't get why there is any debate on this. The wii u cpu is weak.

The gamecube, wii and wii u are all based on the PPC750 architecture and we know the wii u uses this because only one core is used for wii mode on the wii u but the other 2 cores are identical. The speed is 1.24ghz so you have an easy calculation of around 8000 dmips for the 3 cores. Yes there is more cache which means the cpu is better utilised but it can't go above the dmips figure.

All the figures are clearly listed here;

http://en.wikipedia....ions_per_second

The AMD Jaguar cores are meant to be just over 3 dmips per mhz so by multiplying by 1600 then 8 you have about 40,000 dmips. Same figure for both ps4 and xbox one.

I know the devil is in the detail but this gives you a rough idea of the performance difference.

Obviously then you have to weigh in other factors like the wii u low bandwidth main memory, fast 32MB video memory, seperate arm cpu, xbox one kinect/operating systems, 32MB fast memory, ps3 cell ppu's etc. which add or detract from performance. The PPC750 is a very old chip architecture dating back to 1997. 

The xbox 360 xenon chip may be poor but each core has a dual thread and it runs at 3.2ghz so that is 6 threads at 3.2ghz. Yes its a rubbish cpu but with 2x the threads and over 2.5x the speed of the wii u cpu it gives it a huge advantage in final speed for integer performance. The difference in floating performance is even more huge but not as significant as the wii u gpu takes up the slack there.

I really wish people would stop pretending the wii u cpu is not weak. The issue is clearly seen in so many games with low frame rates. We all know the wii u gpu is not at fault, its a superior spec to 360 and PS3 but clearly there is an issue in the wii u spec causing many games to underperform and have sometimes cpu intensive features removed. The architecture of the wii u gpu is likely to be of an AMD design that require 30% less assistance from the cpu as well.

http://www.eurogamer...ations-face-off

It is getting ridiculous when everywhere else people have realised the wii u is current gen performance but you come here and people are pretending its competitive with ps4 and xbox one or signficantly more powerful than ps3 and xbox 360.

The evidence of how powerful the wii u is can be easily understood by looking at reviews that compare wii u versions to other versions on other consoles. That is the evidence. You'll learn nothing useful from reading the rantings of a fanboy.

Let's hope the wind waker console bundle starts selling. Before the wii u was launched it was stated foxconn were producing 1.5 million consoles per month but so far only about 3.6 million wii u's have been sold. Clearly the wii u has massively underperformed compared to Nintendo's expectations.

Anyone come across any great deals. Best I've seen is about £40 or just under. Anything better?

Don't mind pre-ordering from a European online retailer if that helps.

This is too early to make a comparison of this type. We really don't know the full scope of the 'X' engine. Just watching a video is not enough. We don't know how it handles physics, AI, weather etc. It could be like the wii game xenoblade with a graphic update or it could be using a much more ambitious engine. Lego undercover had some nice graphical touches in places but looked pretty weak in other areas compared to 360/PS3.

It was pretty incredible what Monolith achieved with the wii. Xenoblade was a game that really pushed the wii to the limit. 'X' may end up a game that visually ends up slightly above 360/PS3 but using an engine that is more basic than the best engines on 360 and PS3. I.e. there is less interaction with the environment and less happening in the environment with 'X' despite the visuals being superior to 360/PS3. I would suggest this as a strong possibility/outcome.

The only way EA are making wii u games again is when a lot more wii u consoles are sold and the type of games they make will depend on what wii u owners want. They make not necessarily want this type of game. EA made wii games to suit the wii market.

Nintendo have a huge number of options but discontinuing the wii u is surely not one of them. 

Nintendo keep making poor decisions and I feel they really need to change the management at the top. They really need to start making good decisions.

Unfortunately good software doesn't always lead to more console sales if it did the Dreamcast would have succeeded as it had amazing software. Its a combination of things (mainly software admittedly) but the console has to be perceived as desirable in itself. The wii u has the stigma of failure attached at the moment.

Nintendo so desperately needed a Mariokart bundle for christmas. If nothing else they should include a disc of game demos with the wii u including mario kart. Saves all that hassle of downloading them. I think they should include mario wii u, nintendoland and as many demos as they can fit on the supplied disc. A few extra colours for the console wouldn't go a miss either.

I hope Nintendo have a really great strategy/push for christmas.

Pikmin 3 was orignally being developed as a wii game. It only renders at 720p and upscales to 1080p (actually says this on the japanese cover). It is also missing anti-aliasing. It doesn't matter how the miiverse thing works if that is not actually graphics in motion. It's quite possible if you pause the game the wii u can do additional processing of the a still image to render it at a higher quality. Any console can do this and the process is well known from the days of Babylon 5 where images were created slowly due to lack of processing power to render them in full motion. It's not much different to pre-rendering if you are only applying extra graphic detail to a still image. 

This is all basic stuff that shouldn't need to be explained. You should only compare full motion game graphics to be fair, not pre-rendered or still images. Unfortunately 3dude is not fair, accurate or honest in his views so this thread has basically turned to garbage.

Whats ridiculous is time and time and time again, including this thread before you even posted, your erroneous arguments are shot dead and buried, and yet you keep bringing them back as if nobody remembered the last 20 times you tried your garbage.

The fact you have support here by some equally demented fanboys is worthless. Your horrific bias should indicate to anyone your points are meaningless. As ever I implore anyone to get onto sites that do cross format comparisons of 360, PS3 and wii u and see the real world not read the ridiculous bias here. Everything the wii u has is being put to full use now, its cpu architecture is well documented, I mean christ its so old many reading this wouldn't even have been born when it was designed. The GPU is basically a low end AMD GPU with bolts on for wii compatibility and image compression (to send to gamepad). There is no secret sauce here, the wii u is what it is.

You can not defend the wii u with lies, upon lies about its potential performance. The wii u has many games with features ripped out, lower resolution, inferior frame rates, missing graphic details compared to 360 and PS3 and its just utterly ridiculous to pretend its competitive with ps4/xbox one when it is struggling to match current gen models most of the time.

People need to get a grip on reality. If the wii u is struggling to outperform or even match 360 and PS3 its not because there is a huge conspiracy or its complicated to develop for, its because that's how it actually performs. There is no complicated Cell processor in the wii u, the GPU does not need much in the way of the CPU assistance as it is a more modern design and the wii u has that 32MB of high speed video memory to give the GPU fast access to the full frame buffer plus other benefits. As consoles go it is super simple. This has already been widely reported all over the internet by many developers and publishers. Its a very simple console to develop for. It's also pointless to use small scale developers of games that do not push the hardware to any level as a source of how powerful the wii u is.

Clearly games that push any hardware to the max are going to be full 3D worlds with realistic graphics and textures, requiring AI, physics engine,  weather effects, explosions etc. So far the wii u has had Assassin's Creed 3, Call of Duty Black Ops 2, Resident Evil Revelations and all have failed to match 360 and PS3 on wii u. Not that there isn't a huge amount of games that don't push the hardware to the max that also underperform on wii u too.

We have the upcoming Call of Duty Ghosts and Watchdogs and its almost certain these will likely underperform on wii u compared to current gen or at  best match them. No doubt the old excuses about lazy developers, lazy ports or maybe some interesting conspiracy theories will be written to explain it. The wii u versions underperforming compared to 360 and PS3 will surprise no one except perhaps some of the people on this forum.

Why is 176gflops being mentioned for the wii u gpu, I thought everyone practically had agreed the wii u gpu was twice that at 352 gflops.  Is there some interesting link that has new information regarding this?

I have to say reading this thread, there is so little realism here about the wii u. If your a lurker looking for wii u performance information you need to go elsewhere this is a completely biased thread with no realistic information.

It bears little relation to how the wii u performs in the real world and mentions none of the inherent weaknesses of the wii u design which is basically due to extreme cost cutting.

Clearly the EDRAM is just part of the whole picture of the wii u specification (a good part) but should be taken in relation to all other parts of the spec to give a full picture.

How many times does this thread mention the wii u is using a dated last century cpu in a three core configuration only running at 1.25ghz. Not many times as far as I can see.

How often is it mentioned its using a low cost fabrication process same as 360 and PS3 yet uses less power.

How often is the 12.8GB/s memory bandwidth discussed as a huge weakness which is slower than 360 and PS3.

A thread with extreme bias is worthless.

I know you shouldn't go to a Nintendo forum expecting unbiased views but some of the information here is so ridiculous.

PS3 and wii u are close to the same weekly sales figures currently in Japan and the ps3 may be sold for many, many years yet in Japan. Clearly the right software and console price will drive more sales but the future is uncertain. There may be ps4 titles that drive huge sales in Japan as well. I don't think anything is certain about wii u currently with regard how long it will be on the market. 

This is meant to be near enough current gen quality. It's basically off development hardware but at the detail level expected for 360 and PS3.

In the past such videos were a bit optimistic for performance so you can probably expect ps3 or 360 to perform slightly worse but we shall see.

I'm not expecting much from the wii u to be honest, I think it will struggle to match the 360 and PS3 versions visually and in frame rates as was the case with Assasin's Creed 3 on wii u. I think even though the developers may have improved the level of performance they can get out fo the wii u now slightly this will be offset by greater use of the gamepad in the wii u version.

Link does look a bit like a runway marshall directing aircraft but I do really like the artwork.

Frankly its pretty rubbish but we still don't know how the ps4 and xbox one will do at this point. They are likely I think to have good launches but how they sell afterwards is another matter. We are still in a world recession and many have other priorities for their money rather than games consoles. It's already been predicted that because the ps4 and xbox one are more modest upgrades in performance its likely people will continue to use their ps3's and 360s for longer before upgrading.

People seem to be forgetting how cheap the wii u is to make, there is no hard drive, the gamepad screen is a resistance type, the main chip is made on a low cost 45nm fabrication process, the memory chips are low bandwidth low cost,  the optical drive represents one of the main costs which could be replaced with a lower cost top loading type like the current ps3. The wii u also has the avantage of a more upto date gpu and 32MB of dedicated high speed video memory that for certain games will allow it to punch above 360 and PS3 and be in the middle ground between current gen and ps4/xbox one in performance.

I currently feel the failure of the wii u is more a rejection of its retail price than the console itself. It never merited the launch price that was just a repeat of the wii where Nintendo tried to sell very underpowered hardware at a high price. It worked for wii but has failed with wii u.

I think we are likely to see a revised wii u with a smaller gamepad screen at a much lower price maybe next year.

I guess my point is people aren't prepared to pay current wii u prices but because Nintendo went so incredibly cheap on the wii u hardware it can be sold at a much lower price than it currently is. So may end up as a entry level console for younger players, casual users and just people that want a more family orientated console.

Many chips work brilliantly with the best of everything in the test lab but when they get put into real world devices sometimes compromises are made including downclocking the speed and using more humble components around the gpu. PS3 RSX was good for its day but the combination of the 360's slightly better GPU and that 10MB of blisteringly fast video memory/cache gave the 360 an easy win there. Only when the cell is utlilised to support the gpu does the ps3 really shine and some games look beyond 360 slightly on ps3. On a mobile device you always have to factor in the battery life. Also nvidia don't do tile based rendering which gives more consistent frame rates. Always look to the minimum frame rates with nvidia mobile gpu's as powervr and the arm mali range are more consistent performers in frame rates even if they can't match the higher peak numbers they just don't drop as much under extreme load.