152 replies to this topic

[Greg1040]

There seems to be a lot of assumption that background services will eat RAM and CPU power, but if Sony have any sense (granted, the poor state of the OS for PS3/PS Vita doesn't hold much hope there) I cannot see any good reason that would be the case.
 
Just look at how much the Xbox 360 was able to do with its background services.  I really do not see why the PS4 would suddenly need 64 times the amount of RAM the Xbox 360 needed, even considering that the video encoding in the background will need some RAM to work.
 
We already know it has a low power CPU so it can remain online and download stuff when in standby.  We also highly suspect its an ARM, which have their own dedicated RAM and often come with hardware video encoding, something we also know the PS4 capable of.  That to me makes it highly likely that the video encoding isn't even using the main RAM or CPUs, it could be entirely offloaded onto the ARM chip.  The only place it could then cause problem is HDD IO latencies as obviously it must be caching the video data somewhere.
 
I could be way off the mark, but it just makes a lot of sense to do it that way.  Considering how powerful ARM chips are now, and how cheap they are, they could offload pretty much all the background services on there leaving the main CPU, GPU and RAM purely for games.

Well said.

[taz546565]

so who like's that dualshock 4 controller look's bigger and comfier than dualshock 3 tbh the specs too me look fantastic especially as it is a console so dev's can really eek every last drop of performance out of the thing hell look what they achieved with 360 and ps3 some of the games look beautifull for the specs they are running on here's looking at you crysis 3.

[Desert Punk]

Why on earth are people still believing the powerpc based cpu of the gamecube, wii and wii u is still competitive?

 

The original xbox was doing games like Half Life 2 with superior AI and a physics engine that just wasn't possible on Gamecube and that only had an old Celeron running at 733mhz. No one at the time believed the Gamecube was as powerful as the Xbox in cpu terms and it could easily be demonstrated too that it wasn't. Now we are saying the wii u using the same basic cpu architecture is competitive with the PS4? It staggers the mind that anyone can believe that.

 

The current crop of wii u games show it can struggle due to lack of cpu resources. The major reason wii u games struggle with frame rates is the cpu. The major reason the ps3 struggles with frame rates is the gpu design and lack of very high speed video memory that the 360 has. Generally the 360 is outperforming the wii u and PS3 easily for frame rates but for different reasons. However properly programmed the ps3 can go ahead by full optimisation of the cell processor.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the wii u cpu performance is in anyway competitive with the new PS4 and Xbox 720 models. The strength of the wii u lies in its gpu and additional memory over the 360 and PS3 but if you get a game that requires additional cpu resources, something like Skyrim for example the wii u will struggle to compete with existing gen models.

 

I mean for christ sake the cpu architecture of the wii u was desighed in the last century. Its just an updated version of the gamecube cpu, now faster and there are three of them. Yes there is other enhancements with regard cache etc but its performance is below that of the 360 and PS3. Easily verified by reading developer leaks and just seeing games in action.

[MorbidGod]

U seriously believe they are using 6GB of ram for os.

Rumours have it only 512mb is used for os egbven the Xbox is only meant to use 3gb and that has kinect ect and slower ram and 5gb for games.

The OS, social features, the camera. But not all for the game.

[Greg1040]

I'll agree theres no doubt 8gb will be used for games but there is no way there is only going to be 2gb free for games I would go for 5gn at the very minimum.

As said there could be separate hardware that runs the os ect that will leave more of the main hardware for games.

[MorbidGod]

I'll agree theres no doubt 8gb will be used for games but there is no way there is only going to be 2gb free for games I would go for 5gn at the very minimum.

As said there could be separate hardware that runs the os ect that will leave more of the main hardware for games.

 

 

I don't know. I don't see why you would need all that for games. Look at Crysis 3 requirements. http://www.crysis.com/us/crysis-3/buy Total of 3GB, 2GB of RAM and 1GB on the video card. And that is to keep the background tasks running and the game. So saying 5GB for a game -- or any more then 3GB -- is really over kill at this point.

[thunderspider]

 Desert, did you even read something about Most Wanted on Wii U? Even Criterion disagree with you, look at this:

http://www.examiner....better-graphics

 

Now look this part:

What about the PC version of the game? Well the Wii U version and PC version both look exactly the same. There aren't any noticable differences unless your PC has 32GB of GDDR5 RAM and you're using custom textures, but this more than likely isn't the case. The Wii U has more RAM and Processing power than the PS3 and Xbox 360, so developers can essentially create bigger and better games on the platform.

 

And this:

Of course, once the Xbox 720 and PS4 hit retailers, the games will look much better than the Wii U version, but not by much. Developers will be able to create games for all 3 consoles in the future without compromising too much details. In the original Wii days, the system had almost no power and developers had to essentially create a whole new game with inferior graphics and entirely different controls. Now, with the Wii U version, developers don't have to do this. They can port the game directly from the PS4 or Xbox 720 without any major hassle. At the same time, the Wii U version has a touchscreen embedded in the Gamepad which will let Developers bring out their creativity. Once this game is released, you can bet that Developers will see what Criterion has done and will attempt to mimic their ideas in a sense.

 

So the Wii U STILL in the same level of the other 7th gen consoles based in some ports that obviously didn't uses the console resources very well?

 Desert, did you even read something about Most Wanted on Wii U? Even Criterion disagree with you, look at this:

http://www.examiner....better-graphics

 

Now look this part:

What about the PC version of the game? Well the Wii U version and PC version both look exactly the same. There aren't any noticable differences unless your PC has 32GB of GDDR5 RAM and you're using custom textures, but this more than likely isn't the case. The Wii U has more RAM and Processing power than the PS3 and Xbox 360, so developers can essentially create bigger and better games on the platform.

 

And this:

Of course, once the Xbox 720 and PS4 hit retailers, the games will look much better than the Wii U version, but not by much. Developers will be able to create games for all 3 consoles in the future without compromising too much details. In the original Wii days, the system had almost no power and developers had to essentially create a whole new game with inferior graphics and entirely different controls. Now, with the Wii U version, developers don't have to do this. They can port the game directly from the PS4 or Xbox 720 without any major hassle. At the same time, the Wii U version has a touchscreen embedded in the Gamepad which will let Developers bring out their creativity. Once this game is released, you can bet that Developers will see what Criterion has done and will attempt to mimic their ideas in a sense.

 

So the Wii U STILL in the same level of the other 7th gen consoles based in some ports that obviously didn't uses the console resources very well?

[Greg1040]

I don't know. I don't see why you would need all that for games. Look at Crysis 3 requirements. http://www.crysis.com/us/crysis-3/buy Total of 3GB, 2GB of RAM and 1GB on the video card. And that is to keep the background tasks running and the game. So saying 5GB for a game -- or any more then 3GB -- is really over kill at this point.

I totally get where your coming from with that but pc ports have to cater for loads of different set ups so games won't be made on the best of hardware as not every1 will be running that.

And looking at specs look at the high performance u need 8gb of ram for it to run so that just goes to show its not overkill if developers want to make the most of there games.

As for consoles it's 1 set up of hardware so they will utilise it as much as they can I would think so there for 5gb is no overkill for games even 8gb is what games at there best performance are using up.

[3Dude]

The fact people are attempting to use ps360 background services as a comparison point in their arguments really goes to show they REALLY have no clue what they are in for in regaurds to 'services'.

And also that they have no comprehension or understanding about why 8GB of assets all for a games immediate use is a pipe dream that could only be realized if you had infinite time and money.

No wonder so many made such a stink and cried foul about skullgirls adding a character costing 150,000 dollars (its actually twice that much) and saying it was a rip off. They are completely clueless.

I totally get where your coming from with that but pc ports have to cater for loads of different set ups so games won't be made on the best of hardware as not every1 will be running that.

And looking at specs look at the high performance u need 8gb of ram for it to run so that just goes to show its not overkill if developers want to make the most of there games.

As for consoles it's 1 set up of hardware so they will utilise it as much as they can I would think so there for 5gb is no overkill for games even 8gb is what games at there best performance are using up.

4GB is the new minimum standard for windows guy. Think about it.

[Greg1040]

Why put 8gb in a console then if your not going to be able to use it that's surly stupid considering it will bump console price up.

Maby I'm wrong but going by rumours the os ect won't use up much of the ram.

Guess well just have to wait and see what's to come

[MorbidGod]

Why on earth are people still believing the powerpc based cpu of the gamecube, wii and wii u is still competitive?

 

The original xbox was doing games like Half Life 2 with superior AI and a physics engine that just wasn't possible on Gamecube and that only had an old Celeron running at 733mhz. No one at the time believed the Gamecube was as powerful as the Xbox in cpu terms and it could easily be demonstrated too that it wasn't. Now we are saying the wii u using the same basic cpu architecture is competitive with the PS4? It staggers the mind that anyone can believe that.

 

The current crop of wii u games show it can struggle due to lack of cpu resources. The major reason wii u games struggle with frame rates is the cpu. The major reason the ps3 struggles with frame rates is the gpu design and lack of very high speed video memory that the 360 has. Generally the 360 is outperforming the wii u and PS3 easily for frame rates but for different reasons. However properly programmed the ps3 can go ahead by full optimisation of the cell processor.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the wii u cpu performance is in anyway competitive with the new PS4 and Xbox 720 models. The strength of the wii u lies in its gpu and additional memory over the 360 and PS3 but if you get a game that requires additional cpu resources, something like Skyrim for example the wii u will struggle to compete with existing gen models.

 

I mean for christ sake the cpu architecture of the wii u was desighed in the last century. Its just an updated version of the gamecube cpu, now faster and there are three of them. Yes there is other enhancements with regard cache etc but its performance is below that of the 360 and PS3. Easily verified by reading developer leaks and just seeing games in action.

 

The x86 architecture was designed back in like what, 70's? Just because the AMD APU is based off x86 doesn't mean it's weaker than a P1, or that it has the Pentium Flaw. IBM makes very good processors, but they usually are more expensive and harder to develop for. Harder to develop for because it's entirely different then what everyone else uses in the computer world.

 

I'm kind of tired of having the debate, over and over again. The Wii U hasn't really shown you anything. All the games -- even Black Ops 2 -- are pretty much ports from old gen hardware. Which, by the way, are based off games that depend on the CPU. Which, by the way, the PS4 appears to be the same way. To have a good GPU and a lower clocked, less powerful CPU. It's the best way to make a console because it can keep the price down (why do you think Sony is choosing a BUDGET APU that combines the CPU and GPU). And everything you have seen, according to the leaks last December, was developed using an A8. Which is not a super powerful CPU (for the PS4). 

 

And the GameCube was pretty powerful. I don't know why you are knocking it. Yes, the Xbox was more powerful. It was clearly the more powerful console. But why do you think Microsoft went with a PowerPC instead of a x86 for the Xbox 360? And that PowerPC processor was a beast back in 2005. Sure, Intel has come a long way since then. So has AMD. But it boggles my mind why you think IBM hasn't. I remember when they announced the Power6 was announced people were saying Apple made a mistake switching to Intel. Here is an article talking about the POWER6. If you read through the comments, you can see some of discussion if Apple made a mistake making the switch. I don't think they did because I know Intel is making good processors now, however back then the iMac G5 was more powerful and more advanced then the first gen Intel iMac's, so yes I was one who thought they made a mistake too.

 

And before you ask, Sony is choosing AMD because of cost. AMD's A8 APU can be bought, at retail, 89 dollars. That includes a GPU and CPU, obviously. IBM can't compete with that. Plus they wanted a platform easier to develop for, and the IBM Cell was not easy to develop for. Microsoft we don't know who they are choosing, but they are looking into AMD and ARM according to the huge leak that was quickly removed. Again, easier to develop for and cheaper. Notice the theme here, though. Sony, and according to the leak Microsoft as well, are going for lower clocked, less powerful CPU's and a more powerful GPU. See the trend?

 

Anyway, I digress. You clearly don't know anything about IBM and their processors, which is fine. Why would you? But as a tech enthusiast, going to ITT Tech and learning about computers, processors and where they started (and as an Apple/Nintendo fan) I keep up to date on all CPU companies. I've always been a fan if IBM and ATI, which is now AMD. ATI made great video cards, and they still do. Again, why do you think all the companies making consoles choose AMD to make their GPU's?

Edited by MorbidGod, 02 March 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Alex Atkin UK]

The fact people are attempting to use ps360 background services as a comparison point in their arguments really goes to show they REALLY have no clue what they are in for in regaurds to 'services'.

And also that they have no comprehension or understanding about why 8GB of assets all for a games immediate use is a pipe dream that could only be realized if you had infinite time and money.

No wonder so many made such a stink and cried foul about skullgirls adding a character costing 150,000 dollars (its actually twice that much) and saying it was a rip off. They are completely clueless.

4GB is the new minimum standard for windows guy. Think about it.

 

But likewise you are completely dismissing the fact that they could be using the ARM for those services, leaving the main CPU free for gaming.

 

Making a games console that wastes huge chunks of RAM and CPU power on none-game related stuff would be pretty stupid.

 

I love the fact my PS3 plays Netflix really well, I love the idea that I might be able to Skype video chat while gaming on the next Xbox, but I do not expect any of those things to be a detriment to the gaming ability of the console.

 

What services do you think the new consoles will have that will take resources away from gaming?  Sony specifically pointed out that the video streaming is done using dedicated hardware encoding, we know there is a low-power CPU for background downloads.  It would be pretty odd if that CPU was only utilised in standby, it seems more likely it will assist with things while the console is running at full power as well.

Edited by Alex Atkin UK, 02 March 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[3Dude]

But likewise you are completely dismissing the fact that they could be using the ARM for those services, leaving the main CPU free for gaming.
 
Making a games console that wastes huge chunks of RAM and CPU power on none-game related stuff would be pretty stupid.
 
I love the fact my PS3 plays Netflix really well, I love the idea that I might be able to Skype video chat while gaming on the next Xbox, but I do not expect any of those things to be a detriment to the gaming ability of the console.
 
What services do you think the new consoles will have that will take resources away from gaming?  Sony specifically pointed out that the video streaming is done using dedicated hardware encoding, we know there is a low-power CPU for background downloads.  It would be pretty odd if that CPU was only utilised in standby, it seems more likely it will assist with things while the console is running at full power as well.

No.



Unfortunately, while a lot of frivolous things CAN be paralellized, particularly grinding large floating point data structures, games are notoriously heavy in sequential code.

Youd be looking at 50-60% paralellizable or below... Throwing cores (or threads) at it is not going to help much. Even at 80% it starts becoming a huge waste, less than 50% improvement improvement from the core before at only six threads (thats only three of the ps4's cores).

Which is why i know they arent using all 8 cores on a game. Its... well, rather foolish for someone who knows about the subject matter.

but... Amdahl was being generous, in reality there is more overhead like mantaining core coherency...

This... is reality. Gunthers law.

[http://5l3vgw.bay.li...xce5Hw8-/Amdahl vs Gunther laws.jpg

Yeah surprise surprise, like everything else that turned out to be a false meesiah for the singularity, throwing more cores at something isnt some freebie, you will actually begin LOSING PERFORMANCE.

Edited by 3Dude, 02 March 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[Soul]

U seriously believe they are using 6gb of ram for os.

Rumours have it only 512mb is used for os even the Xbox is only meant to use 3gb and that has kinect ect and slower ram and 5gb for games.

This is why you can't take it seriously. The PS4 also had these rumours.

[Alex Atkin UK]

That makes sense, I had been puzzling at the suggestion that phones will be going to 8 cores now.  It had largely been expected for them to drop back to newer generation dual-cores for the reasons you describe.

 

As for Wii U, I still see a situation where games will use too much RAM to port over.

[3Dude]

That makes sense, I had been puzzling at the suggestion that phones will be going to 8 cores now.  It had largely been expected for them to drop back to newer generation dual-cores for the reasons you describe.
 
As for Wii U, I still see a situation where games will use too much RAM to port over.

Because smart phones and tablets arent gaming systems, they are becoming entertainment systems... which is what ps4 and durango want to become.

when you are working on one thing, like a game, then only so much of it can benefit from paralellization. when its something completely different, thats a 100% benefit. Thats what they are thinking with more cores. Doing more and more and more seperate things, and transitioning between them smoothly. Instantly, and back. Not using it all on one big thing.

And no, the ram would just be an excuse. And its not using all 8GB on a game, just not like its using all 8 cores. Ireally dont think you guys are in the right frame of mind for what these features and services are going to be.

Oh, and you want to talk about ram restrictions and porting?

[Socalmuscle]

That makes sense, I had been puzzling at the suggestion that phones will be going to 8 cores now.  It had largely been expected for them to drop back to newer generation dual-cores for the reasons you describe.

 

As for Wii U, I still see a situation where games will use too much RAM to port over.

 

Not at this level.

 

You still have to PROCESS the data in RAM.

 

The PS4 will do that better than the Wii U, but the Wii U cache and RAM setup makes it more reliable and will be plenty fast. There will be some differences, but it won't be to the point where the Wii U is technically unable to be close to a major PS4 game.

 

The PS4 is nice as it allows you more wiggle room with your code to allow it to run acceptably before much optimization.  The Wii U will require more thought in terms of how to utilize the way the working memory is set up. But once you put in the work, you reap some serious rewards.

 

There probably won't be any major polygon differences or texture quality differences, but there will end up being more texture variation in the same "area" "world" etc. before the need to load new scene data into RAM is necessary. More characters (not counting the polygon hit in creating them on the PS4, making geometry reduction necessary in other areas) and object can be processed in terms of Physics and AI, scripts, etc.  But the overrall look and feel of the game isn't going to be a lot different.  Same textures quality, the same or similar geometry, etc.

[Tricky Sonic]

It seems a lot of the people questioning the specs are people not to familiar with PC hardware. These specs are good, but no where near top end in whats available to PC gamer's. Also as to anyone who thinks its not powerful enough, you need to realize that if they attempted to put the most powerful hardware in the machine...we would never see it launch. Technology updates so fast, it would literally be impossible. Any PC gamer can tell you that building a new machine is great and also sucks at the same time, you have many decisions to make and generally even if you blow 3k or so...by the time you build your machine you can bet it will be outdated shortly after.

[Desert Punk]

 Desert, did you even read something about Most Wanted on Wii U? Even Criterion disagree with you, look at this:

http://www.examiner....better-graphics

 

Now look this part:

What about the PC version of the game? Well the Wii U version and PC version both look exactly the same. There aren't any noticable differences unless your PC has 32GB of GDDR5 RAM and you're using custom textures, but this more than likely isn't the case. The Wii U has more RAM and Processing power than the PS3 and Xbox 360, so developers can essentially create bigger and better games on the platform.

 

And this:

Of course, once the Xbox 720 and PS4 hit retailers, the games will look much better than the Wii U version, but not by much. Developers will be able to create games for all 3 consoles in the future without compromising too much details. In the original Wii days, the system had almost no power and developers had to essentially create a whole new game with inferior graphics and entirely different controls. Now, with the Wii U version, developers don't have to do this. They can port the game directly from the PS4 or Xbox 720 without any major hassle. At the same time, the Wii U version has a touchscreen embedded in the Gamepad which will let Developers bring out their creativity. Once this game is released, you can bet that Developers will see what Criterion has done and will attempt to mimic their ideas in a sense.

 

So the Wii U STILL in the same level of the other 7th gen consoles based in some ports that obviously didn't uses the console resources very well?

 Desert, did you even read something about Most Wanted on Wii U? Even Criterion disagree with you, look at this:

http://www.examiner....better-graphics

 

Now look this part:

What about the PC version of the game? Well the Wii U version and PC version both look exactly the same. There aren't any noticable differences unless your PC has 32GB of GDDR5 RAM and you're using custom textures, but this more than likely isn't the case. The Wii U has more RAM and Processing power than the PS3 and Xbox 360, so developers can essentially create bigger and better games on the platform.

 

And this:

Of course, once the Xbox 720 and PS4 hit retailers, the games will look much better than the Wii U version, but not by much. Developers will be able to create games for all 3 consoles in the future without compromising too much details. In the original Wii days, the system had almost no power and developers had to essentially create a whole new game with inferior graphics and entirely different controls. Now, with the Wii U version, developers don't have to do this. They can port the game directly from the PS4 or Xbox 720 without any major hassle. At the same time, the Wii U version has a touchscreen embedded in the Gamepad which will let Developers bring out their creativity. Once this game is released, you can bet that Developers will see what Criterion has done and will attempt to mimic their ideas in a sense.

 

So the Wii U STILL in the same level of the other 7th gen consoles based in some ports that obviously didn't uses the console resources very well?

 

 

Processing can refer to the graphic processing unit or the central processing unit. This type of game doesn't need much in the way of cpu power its all about delivering polygons and texturing at high speed which the wii u has no problem with. Its additional high speed video memory (32MB over the 360's 10MB) and the fact it has double the system memory for games (more so when you factor in the operating system overheads for 360 and PS3) means its capable of enhanced textures and its gpu has a feature set above that of the current gen models. The issue is where games require extra cpu resources the ps3 and 360 are superior. Lets not forget many/most games do not require a lot of cpu resources but future PS4/Xbox 720 titles will surely be written to take advantage of the additional cpu resources especially as they are near enough identical in cpu power if the leaks are true. No way can the wii u compete in that area.

 

Like many I was hoping for more cpu power with the wii u. Many people on this forum had many ridiculous claims about cpu performance and back before release I was hoping for a Power 7 main cpu at 1.6ghz and 2 support cpus of the original gamecube/wii powerpc design. The development units were claimed to be 1.6ghz and there was that IBM leak that we relied on that said 'Power 7' was in there. However the reality is its 3xgamecube cpu at 1.25ghz with enhanced cache and other minor updates. Probably somewhere in the area of 70% as powerful as the 360 cpu and perhaps 1/2 the power of the PS3. However the improved gpu design requires less cpu resources and of course the different cpu architectures have strengths in different areas.

 

The important factor is memory speed though. Its low in the wii u and we know this as fact because the chips are labelled and have a known bandwidth. So we know how much data can travel through it from gpu and cpu even if we are unsure how it is divided between the 2 main chips. The point is though its half the bandwidth approx of ps3 and 360 and only twice that of the original wii approx. However you juggle it wii u is Nintendo's entry into the current gen in performance terms overall. Overall being the key word here because in someways its a good upgrade and this will be shown in certain games. Its such a shame too because if the wii u had perhaps 2x the cpu resources it would have easily sat between current gen and next gen in performance which I think would of helped it sell hugely. Nintendo only had to spend a little bit more to achieve that. Nintendo's ridiculous cost cutting could well damage them this generation. You only have to look at the wii mini to see Nintendo are taking cost cutting to the extreme.

[3Dude]

Processing can refer to the graphic processing unit or the central processing unit. This type of game doesn't need much in the way of cpu power its all about delivering polygons and texturing at high speed which the wii u has no problem with. Its additional high speed video memory (32MB over the 360's 10MB) and the fact it has double the system memory for games (more so when you factor in the operating system overheads for 360 and PS3) means its capable of enhanced textures and its gpu has a feature set above that of the current gen models. The issue is where games require extra cpu resources the ps3 and 360 are superior. Lets not forget many/most games do not require a lot of cpu resources but future PS4/Xbox 720 titles will surely be written to take advantage of the additional cpu resources especially as they are near enough identical in cpu power if the leaks are true. No way can the wii u compete in that area.

Like many I was hoping for more cpu power with the wii u. Many people on this forum had many ridiculous claims about cpu performance and back before release I was hoping for a Power 7 main cpu at 1.6ghz and 2 support cpus of the original gamecube/wii powerpc design. The development units were claimed to be 1.6ghz and there was that IBM leak that we relied on that said 'Power 7' was in there. However the reality is its 3xgamecube cpu at 1.25ghz with enhanced cache and other minor updates. Probably somewhere in the area of 70% as powerful as the 360 cpu and perhaps 1/2 the power of the PS3. However the improved gpu design requires less cpu resources and of course the different cpu architectures have strengths in different areas.

The important factor is memory speed though. Its low in the wii u and we know this as fact because the chips are labelled and have a known bandwidth. So we know how much data can travel through it from gpu and cpu even if we are unsure how it is divided between the 2 main chips. The point is though its half the bandwidth approx of ps3 and 360 and only twice that of the original wii approx. However you juggle it wii u is Nintendo's entry into the current gen in performance terms overall. Overall being the key word here because in someways its a good upgrade and this will be shown in certain games. Its such a shame too because if the wii u had perhaps 2x the cpu resources it would have easily sat between current gen and next gen in performance which I think would of helped it sell hugely. Nintendo only had to spend a little bit more to achieve that. Nintendo's ridiculous cost cutting could well damage them this generation. You only have to look at the wii mini to see Nintendo are taking cost cutting to the extreme.

You dont seem to understand that ppc750 is not a processor, its a series identifier, with many different processors in the series, including ones that make 360's xenon performance look like a joke. And those were just single core at 90nm @1GHz and a little over. Whats in wii u is a heavily modified fx or gx, which is three or four generations past the cx/cle in cube and wii.

What you keep bringing up is the cx processor, which is not used in the wii u's espresso. You might as well be trying to convince people that i7's suck by showing us an i3.

Edited by 3Dude, 03 March 2013 - 05:53 AM.