139 replies to this topic

[Bunkei]

Since it was brought up again, I'll answer: it's because of the extra memory and faster gpu. But the slow cpu could still cause a hindance in some games.

ah, well in that case, I'm sure that most developers could work around that disadvantage as Ubisoft and Activision have done.

[Alex Wolfers]

Who cares about the GPU when the other stats make up for it!

You've been very fanboy lately.

Unprofessional comments, but I guess he's probably right.
He'd know more than us.
Regardless, even if they decided to port it now, it's not going to sell. Especially with comments like that to scare off his audience.

Okay im a fanboy but for a good reason. All of the nasty PS4 rumors and the RROD system. Nintendo has never let me down.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

Do you mean CPU, Mr. Saturn?

The CPU and GPU are both a large factor in performance.

[3Dude]

Since it was brought up again, I'll answer: it's because of the extra memory and faster gpu. But the slow cpu could still cause a hindance in some games.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

Only games ported from an architecture with higher clock speed, more primitive instructions, and deep narrow pipelines.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

What's your point, 3Dude?

The performance of something is basically the architecture multipled by the clock speed. Which means that those who say that the Wii U will be more powerful because of new architecture are wrong (sorry guys). It's architecture and clock speed that matter.

[3Dude]

What's your point, 3Dude?

The performance of something is basically the architecture multipled by the clock speed. Which means that those who say that the Wii U will be more powerful because of new architecture are wrong (sorry guys). It's architecture and clock speed that matter.

You do realize the wii u is not using ppc750 series right? You do realize the only way clock speed woud be useful right now is if it DID use a ppc 750 (broadway) You do realize that each entry in the power series uses a new architecture right? You do know that power 5, power 6, power 7 have vastly different architectures, rtight? You know wii used power isa v1 while wii u uses isa6 or 7 right?

And you do know you cant 'multiply an architecture' right?

Edited by 3Dude, 21 November 2012 - 05:11 AM.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

Sorry, but I think I know what I'm talking about. Just because it's not mathematically correct doesn't mean it's not sensically correct. The only point I'll give you is that I was probably wrong about the 360's cpu being 7-15 times as powerful as the Wii's.

[3Dude]

Sorry, but I think I know what I'm talking about. Just because it's not mathematically correct doesn't mean it's not sensically correct. The only point I'll give you is that I was probably wrong about the 360's cpu being 7-15 times as powerful as the Wii's.

This is a different subject, what went on in a different thread has no bearing on what you are saying in this one, however you refusing accountability is not helping your credibility here.

First and foremost, are you basing your logic on the wii u cpu belonging to the ppc 750 line (broadway), your post seemed to im;ly that you are. I cant go any farther until you show me what you are working with.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

If the Wii U's architecture was superior to the Wii's and clocked at 1MHz, it would be slower than the Wii's processor clocked at 729MHz. Why do I have to show I know this?

[3Dude]

If the Wii U's architecture was superior to the Wii's and clocked at 1MHz, it would be slower than the Wii's processor clocked at 729MHz. Why do I have to show I know this?

Not the question I asked. And you you are being ridiculous. Using logical fallacies, particularly argumentum rdiculous is not helping your credibility. Thats a clock speed difference of over 700x. We are talking of Clock speed differences within reason according to common sense, 2, 3 4 or 5x are well within reason for better performing architecture.

There are many famous documented examples. Like how an 867 MHz G4 completed a task in 45 seconds while a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 took 82 seconds for the same task. Or using the wiki article I gave you, going back to 84 with apple II vs ibm PC's (ah, before the golden age of power mac).

The argument was that the PC was 5x times faster than the Apple, as its INTEL 8086 processor had a clock speed roughly 5x the clock speed of the Rockwell 6502 used in the Apple. However, what really matters is not how finely divided a machine's instructions are, but how long it takes to complete a given task. Consider the LDA # (Load Accumulator Immediate) instruction. On the 6502, which runs at 1 MHz, that instruction requires 2 clock cycles, or 2μs. Although the 4.77 MHz INTEL's clock cycles are shorter, the LDA # needs 25 of them, so it takes 25/(4.77 x 10⁶) = 5.24μs. For that instruction the INTEL machine runs 2.62 times slower than the Rockwell.

So, a system with a clock speed 5x faster, performed 2 and a half times slower.

You have more valid, solid arguments you could be choosing from, but... are you not seeing them?

[PRP777]

Posting the edited and full post...

in theory yes, but the latest report from eurogamer says that while playing NSMBU the console was consuming only 33W and around 29W in the menus with no disc

If that's the case I wonder how much cooler the console would run if you could install the disc, so it wouldn't have to run. I also wonder how much the watts would be reduced if Nintendo decided to add this feature.

Edited by PRP777, 21 November 2012 - 05:52 AM.

[3Dude]

Im serious dude, having a solid argument is important to discussion, so Ill give you one.

The wii u 'cpu' is only 32 mm squared. Thats roughly the same size as the intel atom. They are both on a 45 nm process. Now, architecture aside you can only fit so many transistors of the same size in a similar area.

[Stormage09]

soo expect games that do not implies lots of units on screen and less players in a multiplayer mode for future games and things like that

Edit: but in games like AC 3 there are moments with a noticeable big number of units on screen and it works fine :/

Edited by Stormage09, 21 November 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[SNES]

soo expect games that do not implies lots of units on screen and less players in a multiplayer mode for future games and things like that

Edit: but in games like AC 3 there are moments with a noticeable big number of units on screen and it works fine :/

You'd have to have a hefty number of units with a high level of physics all going on at once to see a severe impact in performance. Something like Supreme Commander for example, which can have an ungodly amount of units in multiplayer. Your average game just isn't going to see that.

More to the point, the biggest limiter with CPU power is whatever you don't want the GPU to handle. GPUs these days are effectively second computers, and are designed to take as much load as possible off of the CPU so that it can focus on more important tasks. This is where having a boatload of RAM and a fast transfer rate come in, as the game is swapping huge files like textures and complicated physics systems on the fly. Bad code slows this down, and this is especially noticeable on PCs, where poorly optimized code can bring even the most powerful systems to their knees.

There is also the issue with ported code, in that every system is built different. This is no different for consoles. The PS3 is, on paper, theoretically more powerful than the Xbox, but many games just don't run as well. Not only is it difficult to program for, but studios push developers hard on deadlines....which leads to inferior versions. At this point in the current generation, it's not as bad. Many developers have figured out how to wring out the best performance from both systems. However, now the WiiU has an entirely new architecture, and the short development time plus the general attitude of companies like EA toward Nintendo has resulted in a number of games that don't really tap into the potential of the system at all.

The system can produce some truly next gen graphics. The Zelda demo and the Japanese Garden demo are simply stunning. Give it a year for developers to get a handle for it, and you'll see some truly jaw dropping stuff.

[Zinix]

soo expect games that do not implies lots of units on screen and less players in a multiplayer mode for future games and things like that

Edit: but in games like AC 3 there are moments with a noticeable big number of units on screen and it works fine :/

You sure this developer wasn't misquoted?

[Tom]

Wait, so you're saying that the Wii U can't dish out 4k resolutions with hyper-realistic character models in 3D at 240fps while serving me shaken-not-stirred martinis?

I am disappoint, Nintendo. :<

[The Lonely Koopa]

Wait, so you're saying that the Wii U can't dish out 4k resolutions with hyper-realistic character models in 3D at 240fps while serving me shaken-not-stirred martinis?

I am disappoint, Nintendo. :<

U'm this discussing has nothing to do with what you just said no console next gen is going to be at that performance we are talking much lower than that.

[Tom]

U'm this discussing has nothing to do with what you just said no console next gen is going to be at that performance we are talking much lower than that.

[The Lonely Koopa]

I know you was Trying to be funny yet It really wasn't needed.

[Tom]

I know you was Trying to be funny yet It really wasn't needed.

Sure it is! c:

People expected the WiiU to be the second coming of Jesus, and I expected it to be a console that plays games that I like. Sure, I may not be able to see over 9000 entities flying about the screen with realistic physics, but the games are still fun.