160 replies to this topic

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

I think it because the 360 really set the pace in development. Also I heard people say this is just like a 1.5 improvement that skyrim should have been. Also why are we comparing this consoles to 7-8yr old ones. The xbox360 came in 2005 and still holds its own in power and graphics. The PS3 came is 2006 and today no has yet to harness the Cell to full power. The Wii came out 2006 and to this day not even the best developers could harness the motions control on it, people even say it was in a different league of motion controlling. Also Xenoblade(I have not play and this coming from a PS3/360 user) probably destroys a lot of games on 360 and PS3.

I think it's safe to say that the PS3's Cell Processor has been reached with GoW Ascension and Uncharted 3. Everything else I agree with.

[Smertrius]

i love wii u

 

this month issue of Nintendo official magazine contains a walk-through for the 1st mansion in luigi mansion 2 , the cover of magazine is animal crossing new leaf, plus preview of assassin's creed black flag, Resident Evil: Revelations, pikmin 3, Game & wario, watchdogs, why reason that rayman is dayled, review of The Amazing Spider-Man Ultimate Edition, mini guide for lego city, the making of Need for Speed: Most Wanted wiiu, news about wii u out selling the ps3 and xbox 360

[Gamejunkie]

I think it's safe to say that the PS3's Cell Processor has been reached with GoW Ascension and Uncharted 3. Everything else I agree with.

I disagree. Games like The Last Of Us, Beyond Two Souls and GTA V will show there is still more that can be done with the PS3.

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

I disagree. Games like The Last Of Us, Beyond Two Souls and GTA V will show there is still more that can be done with the PS3.

Perhaps, I haven't seen much of those games, so I can't comment.

[Mewbot]

yeah i will say deep down(if it represent real time gameplay) is very impressive. nothing else i saw impressed me. yeah i had a chance to watch the watchdog demo a couple more times and its not impressive to me. just give me great artstyle and native 720 60fps like Zelda HD demo and im good for Wii U.

also yeah X wasnt on the level of anything we saw running on ps4. it did look REALLY good as others have mentioned for an open world game that probably was alpha stage footage we saw. like im so curious to see what this console will be able to pull off. Nintendo has a chance to knock socks off come E3... the question is will they???

None of the PS4 games we saw were open world, that makes a difference. The gameplay they showed of that shooter (don't even know it's name) still didn't look that much better than anything we've seen this gen.

 

Oh, and IMO X looked a hell of a lot better than Skyrim does on my mid-range PC.

X doesn't look like anything graphically better than the current gen. Killzone Shadow Fall destroys it and God of War Ascension looks better than it. Doesn't mean it won't be a great game though.

X is OPEN WORLD. Killzone is not open world. An open world game has to render everything you can see and be ready for you to travel there without having any items pop in/out along the way. Open world games just use a lot more power than closed world games. A better comparison to make would be X vs Skyrim graphics.

[Desert Punk]

I remember reading developers comments not that long ago that the PS3 hasn't reached full potential. The PS3 is a absolute nightmare in many ways, the gpu is weaker than 360 and it doesn't have the 10MB of very high speed video memory (although there is graphic memory cache on the gpu). I think the reality is the amount of effort to maximise the performance of the ps3 is just too extreme. Making use of every part of the cell processor and working out how to do so with limited memory bandwidth is just too time consuming and costly. Besides with any console if you have the time and money you can fully optimise the code by hand assembly of the code to maximise performance. When you look at the spec of the cell processor you think the ps3 in theory should easily outperform the 360 but really the only games that show performance above 360 are games that have been written from the ground up exclusively for ps3. Even where the ps3 is the lead platform often performance is only marginally ahead on ps3. When the ps3 was first launched often multiformat games made no use of the additional features of the ps3. So often multiformat games had inferior frame rates and looked worse on ps3 compared to 360. Now programmers know how to maximise performance by offloading some gpu tasks to the cell so it can match or exceed that of the 360 in frame rates. One advantage the ps3 has over 360 is once the 10MB of the 360 is exceeded the 360 has to use far slower memory and this means 1080p is not really an option on 360 unless its more simple games like 2D games but the PS3 has achieved 1080p on more impressive titles like wipeout even though under very high load wipeout will drop resolution.

 

I think if you compare X to xenoblade chronicles on the wii the game looks to be much the same in game engine but with a visual jump in graphics. It still looks to me like there isn't as much going on in the world as skyrim and the motion and a.i. of the creatures and people looks more simplistic compared to skyrim. In skyrim when people move and run it looks realistic and they attack with some variation in their patterns.

 

 

 

However don't get me wrong 'X' looks brilliant but so far and the important thing is so far the video shows a visually enhanced version of xenoblade and not something of the complexity of skyrim.

 

I mean no matter how you try and manipulate the information the wii u is operating a tri core arrangement of the wii cpu at 1.25Ghz. The xbox 360 is operating a tri-core cpu at 3.2ghz with 2 threads per core. Both 360 and PS3 are cpu-centric designs and for many games much of this cpu performance goes un-utilised but this is not the case for bethedsa games like skyrim they max out the cpu performance. To me its clear the original wii xenoblade game engine looks much the same albeit with much reduced visual quality.

[3Dude]

Desert Punk, on 13 Apr 2013 - 19:53, said:I remember reading developers comments not that long ago that the PS3 hasn't reached full potential. The PS3 is a absolute nightmare in many ways, the gpu is weaker than 360 and it doesn't have the 10MB of very high speed video memory (although there is graphic memory cache on the gpu). I think the reality is the amount of effort to maximise the performance of the ps3 is just too extreme. Making use of every part of the cell processor and working out how to do so with limited memory bandwidth is just too time consuming and costly. Besides with any console if you have the time and money you can fully optimise the code by hand assembly of the code to maximise performance. When you look at the spec of the cell processor you think the ps3 in theory should easily outperform the 360 but really the only games that show performance above 360 are games that have been written from the ground up exclusively for ps3. Even where the ps3 is the lead platform often performance is only marginally ahead on ps3. When the ps3 was first launched often multiformat games made no use of the additional features of the ps3. So often multiformat games had inferior frame rates and looked worse on ps3 compared to 360. Now programmers know how to maximise performance by offloading some gpu tasks to the cell so it can match or exceed that of the 360 in frame rates. One advantage the ps3 has over 360 is once the 10MB of the 360 is exceeded the 360 has to use far slower memory and this means 1080p is not really an option on 360 unless its more simple games like 2D games but the PS3 has achieved 1080p on more impressive titles like wipeout even though under very high load wipeout will drop resolution.
I think if you compare X to xenoblade chronicles on the wii the game looks to be much the same in game engine but with a visual jump in graphics. It still looks to me like there isn't as much going on in the world as skyrim and the motion and a.i. of the creatures and people looks more simplistic compared to skyrim. In skyrim when people move and run it looks realistic and they attack with some variation in their patterns.


However don't get me wrong 'X' looks brilliant but so far and the important thing is so far the video shows a visually enhanced version of xenoblade and not something of the complexity of skyrim.
I mean no matter how you try and manipulate the information the wii u is operating a tri core arrangement of the wii cpu at 1.25Ghz. The xbox 360 is operating a tri-core cpu at 3.2ghz with 2 threads per core. Both 360 and PS3 are cpu-centric designs and for many games much of this cpu performance goes un-utilised but this is not the case for bethedsa games like skyrim they max out the cpu performance. To me its clear the original wii xenoblade game engine looks much the same albeit with much reduced visual quality.


First and foremost, you have once again COMPLETELY ran away from a HUGE amount of lost arguments and tried to throw together another one as if nothing just happened.

That out of the way.

1. The wii u is running a tricore modified 750 series, NOT a tricore broadway. What you are doing is essentially calling an i3 the same thing as an i7. Broadway was a custom 750cxe, espresso is a tricore custom 750 with two FX's and a GX, which had numerous performance enhancements beyond cache size and clock speed.

2. The ai in skyrim, and all elderscrolls games is crap. Particularly hilarious when compared to the boastings always made and never delivered upon. Nothing in your video showed any ai more sophisticated than a fixed routine that switches to rush at the player head on and attack when a proximity event is triggered.

3. Your poorly worded argument with intangible quantifiers of 'more alive' refers to the difference in combat style, from very poorly done real time in skyrim, to an rpg active time system in xenoblade, not ai.

Before being engaged in a battle, xenoblades ai actually interact with the environment and some with each other, in an ecosystem. More than ive ever seen in wildlife in skyrim, which without fail simply wanders about in idle animations until triggered by the player, then rushes them head on, or, performs the exact same process with npc's deemed 'bad'. Thats the extent of the ai, rushing at crap and beating it. When it works that is, you can see PLENTY of branch misses in that video.

In fact, Xenoblades monsters have more demanding ai than skyrims, they are capable of many, many, many more moves, and the possibility of such planned moves to be erased from the future, and a metric butt ton more branch affecting status effects. Something the 750 series excels at that xenon stutters with. Heavy, heavy branch code. The stock recent 750's (including broadway) series can handle up to 4 misses without penalty, while xenon incurs a 500 cycle (half a GHz) penalty with every miss. The 750 series also has much better branch prediction than xenon, and when it does incur a penalty, its 5 cycles because its not a not goodly deep piped system so as to try and mask its horrible horrible latency. Sucks being an in order processor.

This is why ai pretty much has gone nowhere this gen. The most popular and powerful systems suck at branch code, the foundation of ai. This is why you always hear the same crap and see the same reactions over and over again. Not because they couldnt record more responses, but that the xenon would choke on branch heavy cache misses.

'I used to be an adventurer.... I used to be an adventurer..... i used to be an adventuree.... arrow... knee...'

Ah, love that 'radiant ai'.


The only thing you actually noticed are the difference between combat styles. The 360 also had games with similar combat styles. You dont want to use those though,


And finally, not only would a tricore broadway clocked over a GHz DESTROY xenon in GP branch code like whats actually needed in ai (all the flops in the world arent going to help with branch code).

The wii u utilizes customized fx/gx 750 architecture, NOT cxe (broadway). They have numerous gp performance enhancements over broadway, and im not talking about just cache sizes and clock speeds.

Aside from that, recent benchmarks show nintendos paired singles simd fair surprisingly well, within range of a 1.1/1.2GHz Bobcat core.... at 747MHz.

Any flops the cpu cant muster, can be retreived from the gpu, which has more flops at its disposal than both the 360's cpu and gpu combined.

And on top of all that. X was an ALPHA game, the enemies that were seen were very likely the ONLY enemies that existed at the time, and they probably didnt even have working ai.

This nonsense already has nothing to stand on, which is why you are using intangible unquantifiable nonsense like 'looks more alive'. But lets see how long you can drag it out for. Nintendos going to start showing some games soon. Im guessing around june is when youll give up.

Edited by 3Dude, 14 April 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Desert Punk]

3dude, the idea that the cpu in the wii u is comparable to a modern design is laughable and has no basis in reality. There is nothing to them when x-rayed and the architecture was designed in the last century. We have already seen many games that are struggling to match current gen in frame rates and that's with the wii u having a superior gpu. It's like you think technology stood still after the gamecube. There is no doubt that the architecture of the wii u cpu is superior to xbox 360 on a mhz basis, no question but 3x1.25ghz vs 3x3.2ghz x2 threads is still an easy win for the 360. It's not like I'm mentioning anything unknown here. The cpu issue has been widely reported by developers and can be seen in software. The fabrication process of the wii u is the same as current ps3/360 models and the wii u uses less power. No matter where you look for the evidence of the wii u cpu performance the results come back the same, be it developers, on screen or taking the console apart.

 

Your theory is basically a very old tiny cpu run at low mhz consuming very little power is somehow comparable to the performance of the latest intel cpu designs and its a theory that can only be justified in the mind of a fanboy detached from reality.

[3Dude]

3dude, the idea that the cpu in the wii u is comparable to a modern design is laughable and has no basis in reality. There is nothing to them when x-rayed and the architecture was designed in the last century. We have already seen many games that are struggling to match current gen in frame rates and that's with the wii u having a superior gpu. It's like you think technology stood still after the gamecube. There is no doubt that the architecture of the wii u cpu is superior to xbox 360 on a mhz basis, no question but 3x1.25ghz vs 3x3.2ghz x2 threads is still an easy win for the 360. It's not like I'm mentioning anything unknown here. The cpu issue has been widely reported by developers and can be seen in software. The fabrication process of the wii u is the same as current ps3/360 models and the wii u uses less power. No matter where you look for the evidence of the wii u cpu performance the results come back the same, be it developers, on screen or taking the console apart.

Your theory is basically a very old tiny cpu run at low mhz consuming very little power is somehow comparable to the performance of the latest intel cpu designs and its a theory that can only be justified in the mind of a fanboy detached from reality.

You do realize ALL cpu's are based on architectures of the previous century right?

Also, i would say you are just misunderstanding the point, but it is very clear you are once again creating strawmen arguments since you are incapable of actually arguing any real points.

I never said or implied the custom 750 in wii u is comparable to an i7. You can stop trying to put those words in my mouth, no one here is stupid enough to fall for your crap.

As for the simd being within the ballpark of a bobcat. It is.

m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=50767125&postcount=3756

750cl: 6.09968 (paired singles;
autovectorized)
bobcat: 4.44868 (sse3; autovectorized)
bobcat: 4.21585 (sse3; manual intrinsics)
cortex-a8: 7.05076 (neon; autovectorized)
7447: 1.59139 (altivec; manual intrinsics)
nehalem: 0.556405 (sse3; autovectorized)
nehalem: 0.694955 (sse3; manual
intrinsics)
dothan: 9.09823 (sse2; autovectorized)

paired singles assembly listing: pastebin.com/nwZbDctr

Thems the rocks kid. At less than 2/3rds the clock speed, hell, its damn near half the clock speed, the 750cle at 747MHz is only off of the 1.33GHz bobcat core by a measure of 1.5.


Raise the clock speed to wii u levels, and the 750cle outperforms the bobcat in simd, its weakest area.

You can start crying now.

And thats NOT whats in the wii u, the wiiu has 750Fx/Gx's, a far more powerful member of the 750 series than broadway.

The 750 series wasnt left behind because its underlying architecture was old. If that was the case wed have no icores.

It was left behind because at that point in time ibm lacked the technology to attain cache coherency with such short piped processors. It couldnt be made multicore.

Edited by 3Dude, 15 April 2013 - 06:15 AM.

[Goodtwin]

A lot of people still dont realize that most 360 games run the game engine on a single core.  Game developers have traditionally kept the game engine running on a single core whenever possible because spreading the work across multiple cores has not become a perefected science.  Take a look at the majority of PC games running on multi core CPU's, they will have one core maxed out and then the second core at about 50% and then 20% or less on the following cores.  The Wii U also uses a DSP for sound, something that most 360 games would use one of the three cores for.  So unless a developer has all three cpu cores maxed out, its really a problem on their end and not a problem with the hardware.  The PS3 CPU would be considered weak as well if you were to ignore the SPE's.  Not taking advantage of the hardware is the developers fault, and for any one of them to bash the Wii U CPU while maxing out a single core with two of them sitting idle is completely rediculous. 

 

Like 3Dude said, the PPC750 is sort of like comparing Core series intel processors, just because they are Core processors doesnt mean they are all similar in capabilities.  IBM never made a multi core 750, so there is a good chance that the Wii U cpu shares a lot in common with newer 476FX processor.  The chip is 100% custom, they werent limited by having to modify an off the shelf chip.  They just need to maintain backwards compatability, but that doesnt mean there arent a ton of upgrades above and beyond the increase in clock speed.  Do I think its a powerhouse?  No, but I doubt that a Jaguar tablet CPU blows it out of the water either.  Once developers wrap their heads around truly mutli threading their games, they will better be able to fully untilize all three cores. 

[MorbidGod]

3dude, the idea that the cpu in the wii u is comparable to a modern design is laughable and has no basis in reality. There is nothing to them when x-rayed and the architecture was designed in the last century. We have already seen many games that are struggling to match current gen in frame rates and that's with the wii u having a superior gpu. It's like you think technology stood still after the gamecube. There is no doubt that the architecture of the wii u cpu is superior to xbox 360 on a mhz basis, no question but 3x1.25ghz vs 3x3.2ghz x2 threads is still an easy win for the 360. It's not like I'm mentioning anything unknown here. The cpu issue has been widely reported by developers and can be seen in software. The fabrication process of the wii u is the same as current ps3/360 models and the wii u uses less power. No matter where you look for the evidence of the wii u cpu performance the results come back the same, be it developers, on screen or taking the console apart.

Your theory is basically a very old tiny cpu run at low mhz consuming very little power is somehow comparable to the performance of the latest intel cpu designs and its a theory that can only be justified in the mind of a fanboy detached from reality.

And what games are you talking about? Ports, correct? Those engines were made for a powerful CPU and a weaker GPU. The Wii U has a more powerful GPU and a less powerful CPU. And you are doing math for CPUs that doesn't really mean anything. We don't know how many transistors the Wii U CPU has. That is a measurement that does tell us of it's power.

GHZ alone doesn't make a more powerful CPU. There are so many different things that can tell us how powerful the CPU is ... But we don't have those answers.

A lot of people still dont realize that most 360 games run the game engine on a single core. Game developers have traditionally kept the game engine running on a single core whenever possible because spreading the work across multiple cores has not become a perefected science. Take a look at the majority of PC games running on multi core CPU's, they will have one core maxed out and then the second core at about 50% and then 20% or less on the following cores. The Wii U also uses a DSP for sound, something that most 360 games would use one of the three cores for. So unless a developer has all three cpu cores maxed out, its really a problem on their end and not a problem with the hardware. The PS3 CPU would be considered weak as well if you were to ignore the SPE's. Not taking advantage of the hardware is the developers fault, and for any one of them to bash the Wii U CPU while maxing out a single core with two of them sitting idle is completely rediculous.

Like 3Dude said, the PPC750 is sort of like comparing Core series intel processors, just because they are Core processors doesnt mean they are all similar in capabilities. IBM never made a multi core 750, so there is a good chance that the Wii U cpu shares a lot in common with newer 476FX processor. The chip is 100% custom, they werent limited by having to modify an off the shelf chip. They just need to maintain backwards compatability, but that doesnt mean there arent a ton of upgrades above and beyond the increase in clock speed. Do I think its a powerhouse? No, but I doubt that a Jaguar tablet CPU blows it out of the water either. Once developers wrap their heads around truly mutli threading their games, they will better be able to fully untilize all three cores.

I really couldn't have said it better.

[routerbad]

3dude, the idea that the cpu in the wii u is comparable to a modern design is laughable and has no basis in reality. There is nothing to them when x-rayed and the architecture was designed in the last century. We have already seen many games that are struggling to match current gen in frame rates and that's with the wii u having a superior gpu. It's like you think technology stood still after the gamecube. There is no doubt that the architecture of the wii u cpu is superior to xbox 360 on a mhz basis, no question but 3x1.25ghz vs 3x3.2ghz x2 threads is still an easy win for the 360. It's not like I'm mentioning anything unknown here. The cpu issue has been widely reported by developers and can be seen in software. The fabrication process of the wii u is the same as current ps3/360 models and the wii u uses less power. No matter where you look for the evidence of the wii u cpu performance the results come back the same, be it developers, on screen or taking the console apart.

 

Your theory is basically a very old tiny cpu run at low mhz consuming very little power is somehow comparable to the performance of the latest intel cpu designs and its a theory that can only be justified in the mind of a fanboy detached from reality.

Sorry, have to step in here, the CPU in the Wii U is a custom design based both on the Power 7 core SIMD and SMP architectures, with design cues from the PPC750 and apparent code compaitibility to the older Power ISA of the 750 series.

 

You are taking a stale, already debunked argument and giving it new life as your strawman.  There has been no widely reported CPU issues, and it cannot be seen in software.  What can be seen is that when the Wii U CPU is tasked with handling the same tasks thrown at the PPE cores in the PS3 and 360, it performs quite well.  None of those games were coded to use the GPU's features, because the code base they were working from was designed to work primarily from CPU.  No, the Wii U CPU outperforms both the PPE based CPU's from last gen and with lower power and a lower clock, thanks to much better SIMD than any 750 series core could muster, and SMP, which was completely absent from the 750 line.  Saying that it is based on old technology is a joke, and you have built yourself about the weakest strawman possible.

 

The process has very little to do with the overall capability of the CPU, the architecture determines much of that.  PPE was designed loosely around Power 4, though less powerful.  It relies on high clocks to overcompensate the long pipelines and stiff miss penalties and lacked out of order execution.  The Power 4 relationship is based on IBM documentation on the PPE and cell.  

 

So, regarless of what you read on wikipedia, Espresso is not based on broadway, though core0 has code compatibility with PowerISA 1.06.  Developers have actually praised the Wii U CPU for it's abilities, not as a powerhouse processor, because it isn't.  But it does things that it shouldn't be able to simply based on it's TDP profile.  When developers use phrases like "it punches way above its weight" I don't consider that an insult.

 

Also, bobcat is an AMD CPU design, and was designed specifically for netbooks, so saying that the performance profile is within that line is completely accurate.  The Bobcat core is similarly designed to do more with less power, though Bobcat has much longer pipelines, slightly higher clocks, and MUCH smaller cache.  Bobcat has a TDP of 18 watts.  Know what you are talking about before spouting off, you are better than this.

And what games are you talking about? Ports, correct? Those engines were made for a powerful CPU and a weaker GPU. The Wii U has a more powerful GPU and a less powerful CPU. And you are doing math for CPUs that doesn't really mean anything. We don't know how many transistors the Wii U CPU has. That is a measurement that does tell us of it's power.

GHZ alone doesn't make a more powerful CPU. There are so many different things that can tell us how powerful the CPU is ... But we don't have those answers.


I really couldn't have said it better.

Agreed, but the Wii U CPU, while the weaker of the two chips for pure performance, is still more powerful than the PPE, or even a tricore PPE, like in the 360.

[Blade of Dyna]

In other works the Wii u is more powerful than current gen but weaker than next gen -_-'

[routerbad]

In other works the Wii u is more powerful than current gen but weaker than next gen -_-'

In other words, you have no idea what defines a gen in gaming.  Got it.

 

I really hope you were being sarcastic.

[Blade of Dyna]

In other words, you have no idea what defines a gen in gaming.  Got it.

 

I really hope you were being sarcastic.

Then what are you saying? The Wii U obviously isn't up to ps4 power like yall  trying to twist it to be

[routerbad]

Then what are you saying? The Wii U obviously isn't up to ps4 power like yall  trying to twist it to be

Oh, so you haven't been able to read any of the thread either?  

 

No one on this forum, at all, has said the Wii U is as powerful as the PS4.  Why do you insist on arguing against straw men?

 

What has been said is that the Wii U is powerful enough to run all of the same games as the PS4.  It isn't a powerhouse, it wasn't built to be.  It is less powerful, but by a narrow margin as will be evident in the games they both receive.  It is a competent system that does what it was designed to do very well with very little waste.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Nobody is ever going to win the generation argument, there is no "this is last gen, this is next gen", it doesn't exist.

 

Fact is, the Wii U, PS4 and likely Xbox Next are all based on the same GPU architecture so can effectively do the same things but to differing degrees.

 

That means Wii U games CAN look a lot like PS4 games, but will be running in a lower resolution, less polys, less post processing, which may or may not be obvious to the end user.

 

More importantly though, good games written exclusively for Wii U will look and play good, good games written exclusive for PS4 will look even better but not necessarily play any better - a good game is a good game, period.  So it really depends how much you value eye candy (I do personally) and if its the kind of game where the graphics actually make a difference (racing games often do as a greater drawing distance gives you more time to plan your move).

 

What we CAN say for certain though is that Wii U is a decent upgrade above PS360.  Even in textures alone games look a LOT more polished, but that isn't all that is improved by a long shot.  With clever art direction its going to have games looking far better looking than PS360. 

 

That said unless I have my rose tinted glasses on I recall Kameo on 360, a launch game by Rare, as still one of the better looking games today because its art style is so different to most games on that system.  Of course, that doesn't mean it plays as good as later games, I wouldn't want to make a decision either way on that.

Edited by Alex Atkin UK, 15 April 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[3Dude]

Then what are you saying? The Wii U obviously isn't up to ps4 power like yall  trying to twist it to be

No one anywhere has said anything remotely close to the wii u being as powerful as the ps4.

Also, console generations, like the definition of the word generation itself, have to do with when a console released and what it competed against. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how powerful the system is.

[Goodtwin]

Nobody thinks the Wii U is as powerful as the PS4, there some people that think the difference will be pretty modest, and those that think it will be pretty large, but everyone agrees that the PS4 is more powerful. 

 

The Wii U is its own thing, and fanboy gamers like to put to much importance on processing power.  Tablets are becoming far more popular than desktop and laptop computers, yet they are far less powerful.  If the majority of people really cared so much about cutting edge tech, they wouldnt be into tablets. 

 

To all the Sony and Microsoft fanboys that bash Nintendo for having less powerful tech, would any of them buy a Nintendo console over the Sony or Microsoft console had Nintendo had the same specs?  The majority are going to pick thier console of choice anyway, and the specs are simply for bragging rights, just like sales were so important to Sony gamers back in the PS2 days.  PS2 is the best, look how it outsells the Gamecube and Xbox.  As soon as Wii was spanking the PS3 in sales, sales suddenly took a back seat to performance.  The Wii U will sell based on its software and gamepad innovation, specs are just just something that makes insecure fanboys feel better about their console that they were going to buy anyway.  

 

All of us here know that if you truly want the best graphics tech then you need to be gaming on a PC.  Consoles are never cutting edge tech, and this generations is no different.   

[tboss]

Then what are you saying? The Wii U obviously isn't up to ps4 power like yall  trying to twist it to be

 

GPU, no, CPU yes or close enough it wont matter.