21 replies to this topic

[MachineLaw]

This is a hot topic around many videogame websites right now and many people are already saying the Wii U will be dead on arrival because it will supposedly be outdated compared to it's rival consoles. Honestly speaking I do believe that both PS4 and Xbox 720 will have more processing power than Wii U, but I'm also sure that the other two consoles will not be coming this year or early next year, the main reason for this is due to games like Mass Effect 3, Halo 4 and GTA V that are still yet to be released. There's also the fact that 1080p HD is the standard right now and as far as I know the Wii U will also be 3D ready in case 3D televisions pick up steam, I also don't think that if they come up with a new "Galactic Definition" there would be any on households by the time Xbox3 and PS4 are released. But this is still speculation on my part, so let's move on with the facts. In terms of power consoles have been following this pattern:

NES --->SNES (2x) --->Nintendo 64 (3x) --->GameCube (3x) --->Wii(1.5x) ---> Wii U (3x)

PlayStation One --->PlayStation2 (3x) --->PS3(3x) ---> PS4 (?)

GB --->  GBC (2x)  --->GB Advance (3x) --->Nintendo DS (3x) --->Nintendo 3DS(3x)  

PlaySation Portable --->PS Vita (3x)

As you can see in this pattern, the Wii is the only console that didn't have any substantial upgrade compared to all the other ones shown here, which meant that most of it's games were essentially Gamecube games with a little more detailed. Of course there were new ways to play the game and Wii hardware itself allowed for a heck of a lot more features than the Gamecube did, but we are strictly speaking about graphical capabilities here since this is all what Sony and MS fans want to hear about.

Quite the difference, right?

Even if Wii U graphics aren't as good as the other two it doesn't mean that players won't be amazed of what it would be able to do. Take a look at the screenshots above for a quick example. PSP had considerable more graphics capabilities than DS and games like God of War, Syphon Filter and Peace Walker demonstrated that, but actually seeing Pokemon the way it was shown on DS was amazing to Pokemon players because it was a great improvement over it's predecessor, so even though PSP had better looking games, it was more amazing to see the transition of Pokemon Ruby, Golden Sun, Mario & Luigi, etc. from the GBA to the DS, and since most of PSP games were transitions from PS2 games they actually looked worse or equal to their respective franchise games on the PS2.

The problem with the Wii was that Nintendo's franchises wouldn't have a drastic change of how they looked on the Gamecube, so people weren't expecting much amusement from seeing new entries from classic franchises. Granted Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 and Skyward Sword look really amazing, but Nintendo's creativity can only go so far with the limited hardware. Again, take in mind that we are only discussing graphical changes, I'm well aware of how awesome Skyward Sword motion controls are and that the Gamecube wouldn't be able to give me that experience.

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (GameCube)

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Wii)

Not much of a difference in graphics.

To conclude this post, I want you to think about how absolutely incredible a new Zelda, Metroid or F-Zero would look like with Wii U's capabilities, and how different they will look from the usual Wii games. Nintendo will once again show why they are one of the most creative developers out there.

I would really like to know what you guys think about this, and if you think that there would really be a drastic difference between Wii U's and PS4's graphics capabilities that would guarantee the Wii U to be outdated. I really hope I got my point across with this post.

Edited by MachineLaw, 07 January 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[Tipzil]

Now i sortof understand lol
must've taken awhile to write lol

I don't actually care about graphics, i'd be fine for a new zelda to be released on the N64!
Why, cause graphics don't matter to me, it's all about Gameplay!

Nintendo doesn't screw up easy

[MachineLaw]

Of course it's all about gameplay, that's why I've been playing Skyward Sword nonstop since I bought it, but wouldn't it be nice if we got both graphics and gameplay? This is something we will definitely get with Wii U, independently if the other consoles are more powerful or not. This post is just to calm down the people that think Wii U will fail because it won't have the best graphics.

Edited by MachineLaw, 08 January 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[Tipzil]

lol, if your a member of the Wii U forums and you think the Wii U will fail... your a troll lol XD

But yeah, Like i always say
Nintendo + HD + Zelda/Mario + Epic Gameplay (as Always) = no wonder they think the world will end

[Arkhandar]

lol, if your a member of the Wii U forums and you think the Wii U will fail... your a troll lol XD

But yeah, Like i always say
Nintendo + HD + Zelda/Mario + Epic Gameplay (as Always) = no wonder they think the world will end

He didn't say the Wii U was going to fail :s

[Tipzil]

He didn't say the Wii U was going to fail :s

No, i'm saying, if you (random person) are a member of these forums and think the Wii U will fail
not saying he thinks its gonna fail XD

(if that all makes sense)

[Medu]

Your figures are very wide of the mark.

The n64->GC was a MASSIVE leap. 10 times more RAM(and much faster), a CPU that was 10-20 more powerful and a GPU that was about 100 times more powerful(n64 could do about 150,000 textured poly the GC 15m). PS->PS2 was similar and the PS2->3 was about a 10-15 fold increase. The snes->n64 cant really be calculated because the snes was a 2D machine.

However your point will probably be proven correct but for other reasons- like diminishing returns on adding detail, cost of producing very detailed graphics makes it non-viable and the possibility that MS/Sony won't be as aggressive with their specs for those very reasons.

Edited by Medu, 09 January 2012 - 02:47 PM.

[MachineLaw]

Your figures are very wide of the mark.

The n64->GC was a MASSIVE leap. 10 times more RAM(and much faster), a CPU that was 10-20 more powerful and a GPU that was about 100 times more powerful(n64 could do about 150,000 textured poly the GC 15m). PS->PS2 was similar and the PS2->3 was about a 10-15 fold increase. The snes->n64 cant really be calculated because the snes was a 2D machine.

However your point will probably be proven correct but for other reasons- like diminishing returns on adding detail, cost of producing very detailed graphics makes it non-viable and the possibility that MS/Sony won't be as aggressive with their specs for those very reasons.

Ok, I agree with you, but I think you went too technical there, there's no real need for specifics like that. To the average consumer that will buy a Wii U, the separation between GC/Wii graphics will still be as relevant as the separation in graphics of the other consoles I listed. I also believe the Playstation brand needs to cut costs on producing ultra high-spec systems, since their last two aren't doing so good.

[Rubix87]

I think it would be a little premature to count nintendo out so soon. They are a gaming company and the primary aspect of gaming is well... games. The hardware is important in transcending the next level of games to a place we've never seen before, however, gameplay is what keeps us coming back. The PS4 and the XBox720 will have considerable upgrades, but each system will have it's own niche. Nintendo is an innovator; sometimes we as fans obsess over specs because we're a afraid of another gamecube era, however the wii proved otherwise, and believe the wii u will do the same.

[10k]

Here is some research I did. The numbers are rough but it can give you idea of the generational power leaps.


NES:

CPU: 1.79Mhz
GPU: 2kb
RAM: 2kb

SNES

CPU: 3.58Mhz (2x better than NES)
GPU: 64kb (32x)
RAM: 128kb (64x)

N64:

CPU: 93.75Mhz (23.6x)
GPU: 480i shared with RAM (32x)
RAM: 4Mb (Expandable to 8) (32x)

GameCube:

CPU: 486Mhz (5.1x)
GPU: 43MB 480p shared with RAM (10.75x)
RAM: 43MB (10.75x)

Wii:

CPU: 729Mhz (1.5x)
GPU: 88Mb shared with RAM 480p (2x)
RAM: 88Mb (2x)

The wii was purposely underpowered, so using the leap of n64 to GameCube specs for the wii to wii u specs you get:

Wii U?

CPU: 3.6GHz Quad Core (About 5.1x better than the Wii's clock speed, plus 3 more cores)
GPU: 1080p shared with RAM (1GB)
RAM: 1GB (88MBx10.75 is 946mb, so I just rounded up to 1 GB)

[Arkhandar]

This is a hot topic around many videogame websites right now and many people are already saying the Wii U will be dead on arrival because it will supposedly be outdated compared to it's rival consoles. Honestly speaking I do believe that both PS4 and Xbox 720 will have more processing power than Wii U, but I'm also sure that the other two consoles will not be coming this year or early next year, the main reason for this is due to games like Mass Effect 3, Halo 4 and GTA V that are still yet to be released. There's also the fact that 1080p HD is the standard right now and as far as I know the Wii U will also be 3D ready in case 3D televisions pick up steam, I also don't think that if they come up with a new "Galactic Definition" there would be any on households by the time Xbox3 and PS4 are released. But this is still speculation on my part, so let's move on with the facts. In terms of power consoles have been following this pattern:

NES --->SNES (2x) --->Nintendo 64 (3x) --->GameCube (3x) --->Wii(1.5x) ---> Wii U (3x)

PlayStation One --->PlayStation2 (3x) --->PS3(3x) ---> PS4 (?)

GB ---> GBC (2x) --->GB Advance (3x) --->Nintendo DS (3x) --->Nintendo 3DS(3x)

PlaySation Portable --->PS Vita (3x)

As you can see in this pattern, the Wii is the only console that didn't have any substantial upgrade compared to all the other ones shown here, which meant that most of it's games were essentially Gamecube games with a little more detailed. Of course there were new ways to play the game and Wii hardware itself allowed for a heck of a lot more features than the Gamecube did, but we are strictly speaking about graphical capabilities here since this is all what Sony and MS fans want to hear about. [...]

Where did you get these numbers? Most of them are very incorrect.

Here is some research I did. The numbers are rough but it can give you idea of the generational power leaps.

[...]

Wii:

CPU: 729Mhz (1.5x)
GPU: 88Mb shared with RAM 480p (2x)
RAM: 88Mb (2x)

The wii was purposely underpowered, so using the leap of n64 to GameCube specs for the wii to wii u specs you get:

Wii U?

CPU: 3.6GHz Quad Core (About 5.1x better than the Wii's clock speed, plus 3 more cores)
GPU: 1080p shared with RAM (1GB)
RAM: 1GB (88MBx10.75 is 946mb, so I just rounded up to 1 GB)

First, some of the numbers are wrong. Second, you're doing the calculations wrong.

Wii:

CPU: 729Mhz
GPU: 243 MHz
RAM: 83MB and 3MB embedded

Wii U (rumours):

CPU: 3.6GHz Quad Core (About 40x , since there are 4 "physical" cores and 8 threads (two for each core) which means we have 8 "emulated" cores )

GPU: Radeon HD 4800 - 2x1GB (16x, since we have 4 threads)

RAM: 1GB and 128MB embedded (11x and 42x)

These are just raw numbers, I'm not even counting that the Wii U is a lot more efficient than the Wii and PS360, since it uses newer technology. It's basically 30 Wii's duck tapped together.

Comparing it to the XBOX 360

CPU: Tri core 3,2Ghz (Wii U - 1,5x)

GPU: 500 MHz (Wii U - 8x)

RAM: 512MB and 10MB embedded (Wii U 2x and 13x)

In conclusion, the Wii U is basically 30 Wii's and 6 XBOX360's duck tapped together. Damn the Wii U is one powerful machine.

*Please bear in mind that these are just estimates. The Wii U hardware is still not final and there are still home for some improvements since the actual numbers are based on rumors.*

Edited by Arkhandar, 10 January 2012 - 01:47 PM.

[MachineLaw]

I know my "calculations" are not accurate, but exact calculations doesn't matter at all if the changes are not noticeable. My point still remains that Wii U will show a noticeable difference of what both the GC and Wii offered, changing the perception that Nintendo games are outdated. Even if the other consoles are more powerful than Wii U, the Nintendo games we are used to play will look the best they ever had.

[InsaneLaw]

You can't compare the MHz/GHz for power, except for the GC/Wii, they're not the same CPU's, so saying they're whatever x the power of something is useless. It's more what those CPUs and GPUs can do that defines the power.

That and the Power 7 architecture has 4 threads per core, not 2.

[giggity3000]

The 360 is 3.5x more powerful then A wii so the Wii U is alot more then 3x

[Terrabyte20xx]

I don't think PS4 or NextBox will be that much more powerful, they don't have enough money to do something like last time. Besides, I believe that the Graphics race is over.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the RAM race. Graphics are coming to a point that until we get past the Uncanny Valley, they won't be getting any better, so until that happens, it will be who can get more stuff happening on Screen with without a drop in quality. But the problem is that RAM is more expensive then GPUs and stuff, so Sony and Microsoft can't afford to try to take out the Wii U with that either.

In Conclusion, the Wii U is great, and will not be overshadowed by either of the new systems.

[MachineLaw]

I don't think PS4 or NextBox will be that much more powerful, they don't have enough money to do something like last time. Besides, I believe that the Graphics race is over.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the RAM race. Graphics are coming to a point that until we get past the Uncanny Valley, they won't be getting any better, so until that happens, it will be who can get more stuff happening on Screen with without a drop in quality. But the problem is that RAM is more expensive then GPUs and stuff, so Sony and Microsoft can't afford to try to take out the Wii U with that either.

In Conclusion, the Wii U is great, and will not be overshadowed by either of the new systems.

Agreed 100%. Sony should focus more on bringing the company back to profitability and Microsoft is still working on integrating all of their services into one, so I don't see new consoles for at least 2 years.

[Dant]

The 360 is 3.5x more powerful then A wii so the Wii U is alot more then 3x

Never take any multiplicative figure as absolute truth, remember the 720/Wii U comparison?

You can't compare the MHz/GHz for power, except for the GC/Wii, they're not the same CPU's, so saying they're whatever x the power of something is useless. It's more what those CPUs and GPUs can do that defines the power.

That and the Power 7 architecture has 4 threads per core, not 2.

^This... BTW I never knew multiple-pipeline archetecture had gotten that good yet.

I don't think PS4 or NextBox will be that much more powerful, they don't have enough money to do something like last time. Besides, I believe that the Graphics race is over.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the RAM race. Graphics are coming to a point that until we get past the Uncanny Valley, they won't be getting any better, so until that happens, it will be who can get more stuff happening on Screen with without a drop in quality. But the problem is that RAM is more expensive then GPUs and stuff, so Sony and Microsoft can't afford to try to take out the Wii U with that either.

In Conclusion, the Wii U is great, and will not be overshadowed by either of the new systems.

RAM is extremely, extremely cheap nowadays, unlike other electronic components it fluctuates in prices as opposed to simply dropping, which would explain them being warry. Just to give an example of how cheap RAM is now, I just built a new computer. 16GB of DDR3 cost $90, divide that by 16, and it's about $5.62 per GB, and that's with the RAM chips being sold to the company that put it on the DIMM module needed for it to work in a PC, and putting heatsinks on it, and having retail packing, and having retail markup from Newegg.com, Where as Nintendo could buy them direct from the chip manufacturer.

[Feld0]

To the OP: great topic, and great points. You've pretty much captured my thoughts exactly. And the fact that people in this topic are disputing the exact degree to which your numbers are off only further proves your point.

I don't think PS4 or NextBox will be that much more powerful, they don't have enough money to do something like last time. Besides, I believe that the Graphics race is over.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the RAM race. Graphics are coming to a point that until we get past the Uncanny Valley, they won't be getting any better, so until that happens, it will be who can get more stuff happening on Screen with without a drop in quality. But the problem is that RAM is more expensive then GPUs and stuff, so Sony and Microsoft can't afford to try to take out the Wii U with that either.

In Conclusion, the Wii U is great, and will not be overshadowed by either of the new systems.

It's not even the RAM race... RAM isn't that expensive anymore (even the cheapest $350 laptop usually comes with 4 GB of it these days). This next generation is going to be the gameplay experiences race.

I expect the graphical differences between the 8th-gen consoles to be comparable to the differences between the 6th-gen ones - whether you got a game for the Xbox, GameCube, or PS2, it would always look pretty much the same. Yes, the Xbox and GameCube were a little more powerful, but the margin was not wide enough to make the PS2 look bad in any way. The difference your choice of console made was in the games you could get for it - each had a smattering of great exclusives, but all three still shared the same great multiplatformers, too. The PS2 ultimately won that generation because it had a greater quantity of awesome exclusives than either of its competitors. With controller designs diverging so far from the classic gamepad with analog sticks and buttons, the winner of the next generation will probably once again be the one that provides the greatest assortment of unique, exclusive experiences.

Honestly, I'm kinda glad that graphical grunt will (probably) be irrelevant next gen - I like poring over clock speeds and CPU architectures as much as the next guy, but when the difference between two systems is something like 100 million polygons vs. 90 million polygons... seriously, there are more important things we as gamers should be looking for when choosing a system.

To add on further to my point - look at the smartphone and tablet races. Manufacturers are toting higher clock speeds, more cores, and more RAM left and right - but the most successful company in both fields remains the one that hardly even mentions its specs to the end-consumer. Apple casually tell you that the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S feature dual-core processors, but none of their consumers honestly choose their products for their horsepower. People choose the iPad over the Tab and the iPhone over the Nexus for experiences they can only get on Apple's products - the silky-smooth menus of iOS, the well-designed iPod application, over-the-air access to 7+ million songs from iTunes, and let's not forget the largest mobile app store in the world.

I've yet to meet one person who chose an iPhone based on the amount of RAM or CPU power it packs.

[Plutonas]

its not working that way!! Because many people may misjudge it!

For example.. wii cpu is 2.5 gflops and wii U cpu is 98 gflops!!! about 39x faster!!! So search before you write this things.. u may kill it.. lol

ps: 97.8 gflops at 3.0 ghz.. if they give it to us up to 3.2 or 3.6ghz.. it will incerase that dramatically.

Edited by Orion, 08 February 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[EternalDeadman]

NES --->SNES (2x) --->Nintendo 64 (3x) --->GameCube (3x) --->Wii(1.5x) ---> Wii U (3x)

PlayStation One --->PlayStation2 (3x) --->PS3(3x) ---> PS4 (?)

GB ---> GBC (2x) --->GB Advance (3x) --->Nintendo DS (3x) --->Nintendo 3DS(3x)

PlaySation Portable --->PS Vita (3x)

Hey the 3DS was a big leap from the DS, definitely more than 3x.