139 replies to this topic

[The Lonely Koopa]

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.

Only Idiots believe it was the second coming of jesus and this topic has little to do with the fun level of a game not to say the CPU doesn't have anything to do with the fun level of a game since it does since it can cause performance issues that will degenerate the fun of a game.

[Tom]

Only Idiots believe it was the second coming of jesus and this topic has little to do with the fun level of a game not to say the CPU doesn't have anything to do with the fun level of a game since it does since it can cause performance issues that will degenerate the fun of a game.

'Aight, I see where you're coming from.

Gosh the CPU sucks. This CPU can't properly render fun, or physics. It's severely underclocked and underpowered according to the industry standards of CPU speed and clocking set by that person. I should know, because I'm a cpuclockologist.

[insert slanderous IGN page here]

Edited by Tom, 21 November 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[The Lonely Koopa]

'Aight, I see where you're coming from.

Gosh the CPU sucks. This CPU can't properly render fun, or physics. It's severely underclocked and underpowered according to the industry standards of CPU speed and clocking set by that person. I should know, because I'm a cpuclockologist.

no silly, different games require different requirements, fun itself can be achieved without a powerful CPU or strong GPU such as Super Mario World yet when a game suffer from performance issues due to weaker hardware it can be less fun as it causes annoyances such as FPS slowdown ,crashing ,etc as an example which would be more fun Battlefield 3 at 60 fps no slowdowns or Battlefield 3 at 15 fps with freezes whenever you bullets hit destructible terrain Or battlefield with 10 players or 32 players.

Edited by The Lonely Koopa, 21 November 2012 - 08:21 AM.

[Stormage09]

prove it.

here you go, thats a PC pad right??

[Plutonas]

HAHAHAHA ... u wanna make the topic intensive is it There is dozen of people been there and claimed, the wii U pad worked but the wii U "sample" was off... and some people moved the curtains behind the console away and it was a pc! emulated the wii U... Its not me who said that, I read it in nintendo.co.uk forums... Because the fight is very intensive there.. (months ago)

Edited by Orion, 21 November 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Soul]

HAHAHAHA ... u wanna make the topic intensive is it There is dozen of people been there and claimed, the wii U pad worked but the wii U "sample" was off... and some people moved the curtains behind the console away and it was a pc! emulated the wii U... Its not me who said that, I read it in nintendo.co.uk forums... Because the fight is very intensive there.. (months ago)

There is tons of kids that say the Easter Bunny is real, so it must be credible!

[esrever]

4A doesn't have the money to port their game. The CPU is bad but probably isn't going to stop current gen games from running well. This will change when the next gen comes.

[Noonabites]

These CPU threads always end in war. I can never read through them completely without becoming irritated, so pardon if I'm repeating another's comment.

Considering all the conflicting, retracted, old, new, whatever type of comments we've been receiving on this topic, it's best to hold the bashing/blame Nintendo/whoever you're responding to comments until official confirmation. I'm not saying debating what the possibility is is stupid.. but things are getting a little too heated.

[bornsupercharged]

The problem is the 4A engine they built was designed to be cpu intensive and likely isn't very efficient. They should have designed the engine to be able to process using both a cpu and gpu vs. relying on powerful cpu(s). With that said, they did clarify and state it was more about resources and being a small studio they can't devote a team to the Wii U since they're caught up with the 360 and PS3 right now.

“I think that what frustrates me about the way the story's been spun out is that there's been no opportunity to say, 'Well, yes, on that one individual piece maybe it's not as... maybe his opinion is that it's not as easy for the way that the 4A engine's been built as is the others.
“What it doesn't go on to look at is to say that, you know, we could probably get around that. We could probably get Metro to run on an iPad if we wanted, or on pretty much anything. Just as in the same way that between PC and current console versions there are some compromises that need to be made in certain places and we strive to get the very best performance that we can from any platform we release on.
“But I understand that there's a real appetite in the media at the moment because the Wii U is a hot topic to spam some stories that are going to attract a lot of links if they present it in a certain way.”

http://www.eurogamer...concern-remains

I like what Ubisoft said, which goes to show when an engine is built correctly and optimized, the Wii U is more powerful than the 360 and PS3...

According to Rayman creator Michel Ancel “What surprises me with Wii U is that we don’t have many technical problems. It’s really running very well, in fact. We’re not obliged to constantly optimize things. Even on the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, we had some fill-rate issues and things like that. So it’s partly us – we improved the engine – but I think the console is quite powerful. Surprisingly powerful.”

Ancel further elaborates that Wii U can handle large textures without any problem. Michel Ancel admitted that during the development of Rayman Legends, the team did not compress certain HD texture files before testing them in actual gaming condition, and it didn’t bog down the console.

http://www.pc-tablet.com/9098-nintendo-wii-release-date-surprisingly-powerful-ubisoft/

Edited by bornsupercharged, 22 November 2012 - 04:57 AM.

[mayhem13]

Like anything if effort is put into making the game, you'll get a good port.  Maybe it won't be better then the 360/PS3 version.  Maybe it will be better in spots and weaker in other places.  But the fact is, you do need to put some effort into it.  Don't forget with the PS3, it had this rediculously powerful CELL processor.  90% of the games for the system barely take advantage of it.  Because many developers claim it is too difficult to figure out or use.  So they use it in a very basic way.  The end result were games that looked as good or maybe just a tad bit less then the 360 version.  Well...there is an example of an extremely powerful processor that no one wanted to develop for properly beyond a few companies.  But they still did.  So like I say, all the time, if the money is there.  The port will be there.  For the money to be there, the games must sell for the system.

Shame of it is...if you want a system to sell and games to sell for it.  You need good third party support.  Well alot of third party support is afraid to support the Wii U because of poor video game sales on the Wii.  So it plays against Nintendo.  Third party needs to see that the Wii U can sell third party games before they'll be willing to risk an attempt at making their game.  So hope that Black Ops 2 and Zombi U sells like crazy.  Because that is what is going to get those third party companies who are not commited to the Wii U to reconsider.  Rockstar doesn't care how well Mario sells, they want to see how well a violent game sells, before they consider making their violent game for that system.

Nintendo has a long history of weak third party support.  The last Nintendo console that had truly great third party support was the Super Nintendo.  N64 as great as it was lacked good third party.  Gamecube was a little better but still far behind Xbox and PS2.  Wii obviously had horrible third party support.  It's an uphill climb for Nintendo as far as the third party thing goes.

I know I keep bringing up third party when the thread is about CPU processing and the comments of a developer or two.  But the thing is...If the Wii U was like the 360/PS3 and video games sold well on it.  All these third party companies would make a port on the Wii U.  They'd want the money.  It's all about money.  The CPU processing excuse is just a way for them to defend not releasing games on the system.  Its not cool to say, "we want to make money".  People don't sympathize with that.  So they say, oh, the CPU is not 100% to our liking.  Thus that is the reason for not making a Wii U version.  No it's not, it's because you saw that third party mature Wii games sold like crap and now you want an excuse that you can give to the public without coming across as greedy.  That applies to any third party companies excuse.

So to make it simple as far as these "hardcore" mature games go from third party companies: if the sales are there, the money is there.  If the money is there, the third party is there.

[alan123]

The issue is why are people comparing the Wii U to the PS3/X360, they should be comparing it to the PS4/X720 & the game engines that will run on those.

Nintendo MUST of known of the probably issues that could be caused by this CPU, so the actual question is why did Nintendo design the Wii U like this because for a small extra outlay on a more powerful CPU now it would have paid dividends in the long-term & maybe of extended the Wii U's life by a year or two.

[Bunkei]

The issue is why are people comparing the Wii U to the PS3/X360, they should be comparing it to the PS4/X720 & the game engines that will run on those.

Nintendo MUST of known of the probably issues that could be caused by this CPU, so the actual question is why did Nintendo design the Wii U like this because for a small extra outlay on a more powerful CPU now it would have paid dividends in the long-term & maybe of extended the Wii U's life by a year or two.

Probably because a more powerful CPU = more heat generated. Nintendo took some lessons from Microsoft's experience with the X360. I'd go even further and say that the PS4 and Durango will follow the same ideology It makes sense in my small mind, a powerful GPU that can take some of the work normally handled by the CPU. A DSP that can process audio instead of the CPU. So in essence, a less 'speedy' CPU but compensates for that without running the risk of high power consumption/heat generation. Overall the result would be a higher performance than the current consoles but more efficiently done.

Of course, none of this being realized since all the multiplatform titles were not designed with this new architecture in mind. Some developers are able to adjust quicker than others due to skill and/or resources. Again, we probably won't see the Wii U's architecture being properly utilized in multiplatform games until the next gen consoles from Microsoft/Sony hits the scene.

Edited by Bunkei, 22 November 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[backudog]

The issue is why are people comparing the Wii U to the PS3/X360, they should be comparing it to the PS4/X720 & the game engines that will run on those.

Nintendo MUST of known of the probably issues that could be caused by this CPU, so the actual question is why did Nintendo design the Wii U like this because for a small extra outlay on a more powerful CPU now it would have paid dividends in the long-term & maybe of extended the Wii U's life by a year or two.

Agreed. surely they must have tested the machine, in different configurations, whilst developing it? or possibly looked at what microsoft and sony had done in the 360 and ps3? saying that Ninty must know how to make consoles, they've been doing it long enough? they must know that one weak component can cause all sorts of woe to a system? but i suppose until we know what the actual specs are for the cpu etc, we don't know quite how weak it is / isn't?

Edited by backudog, 22 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[3Dude]

HAHAHAHA ... u wanna make the topic intensive is it There is dozen of people been there and claimed, the wii U pad worked but the wii U "sample" was off... and some people moved the curtains behind the console away and it was a pc! emulated the wii U... Its not me who said that, I read it in nintendo.co.uk forums... Because the fight is very intensive there.. (months ago)

Youve never seen a devkit before have you?



OH MY GLOB!!! The Xbox, ps2, gamecube and dreamcast where all REALLY PC'S!!!!!!!

Edited by 3Dude, 22 November 2012 - 02:25 PM.

[esrever]

Agreed. surely they must have tested the machine, in different configurations, whilst developing it? or possibly looked at what microsoft and sony had done in the 360 and ps3? saying that Ninty must know how to make consoles, they've been doing it long enough? they must know that one weak component can cause all sorts of woe to a system? but i suppose until we know what the actual specs are for the cpu etc, we don't know quite how weak it is / isn't?

Nintendo wants backward compatibility and a cheap cpu. The cpu inside an iphone 5 is almost definately faster than the one inside the wii u. Nintendo went with the console that cost the least to make that can do 720p HD gaming.

[3Dude]

Nintendo wants backward compatibility and a cheap cpu. The cpu inside an iphone 5 is almost definately faster than the one inside the wii u. Nintendo went with the console that cost the least to make that can do 720p HD gaming.

Ha ha oh wow. A sub watt arm v7 processor derivitive.

Some of you guys actually believe this dont you?

Wow.

[esrever]

Ha ha oh wow. A sub watt arm v7 processor derivitive.

Some of you guys actually believe this dont you?

Wow.

32nm chip vs a 45nm chip. With a modern and efficient ISA and caching. The chip itself is simply much more modern.


This is the only possible benchmark so far. The software can increase efficiency but the Wii u will need a 180% increase in performance to match the iphone 5.

[3Dude]

32nm chip vs a 45nm chip. With a modern and efficient ISA and caching. The chip itself is simply much more modern.

This is the only possible benchmark so far. The software can increase efficiency but the Wii u will need a 180% increase in performance to match the iphone 5.

I guess you didnt know? The wii u cpu doesnt run the os and apps like its browser, its arm coprocessor does. You are comparing an arm to an arm, not a power derivitive.

But seriously dude, even at 24nm a subwatt processor for a battery device is NOT going to be outmuscling a walled device taking 15 watts unless there is a huge gap in time. Thats just reality man.

Like the dedicated sound chip, Nintendos system design removes all unecessary loads from the cpu.

Although 180% is nothing. Audiokinetic acheived performance increases of 500% from optimizations to their wwise 2012 v2 middleware.

Edited by 3Dude, 22 November 2012 - 04:32 PM.

[Desert Punk]

The sad thing about this is some people are still taking 3dude seriously. All consoles have a dedicated sound processor and remove most of the burden of sound processing from the cpu. This is really basic stuff.

The cpu in the wii u like the 360 should be easy to optimise for.

You don't need to know the architecture of the wii u cpu. All we need to know is end performance just like with a car you don't really need to know how an engine is configured you just need to know what the performance of that engine is.

Developers have stated the wii u cpu is weak because its weak in overall performance based on its architecture and clock frequency. It is a pointless exercise to discuss architecture.

The 360 cpu even at the same manufacturing fabrication process as the wii u is larger and more complex and it operates at a higher speed than wii u. Even if the wii u cpu architecture is more advanced in someways its going to be near impossible for it to match the 360 cpu for performance due to clock frequency and lower number of transistors.

The wii u cpu is weak sadly and thats the reality. Any assistance the gpu can give the cpu will be specific to certain areas like physics, mpeg decoding etc. Its not a general cpu.

If your expecting the wii u to compete with the next gen consoles you are going to be sorely disappointed. The type of consoles that games massively improve over time are complicated consoles like the saturn, jaguar, ps2 and ps3 which have a steep learning curve to developing for them.

The wii u has strengths and weaknesses and one weakness is the cpu as pointed out by many developers who are in fact the people that would actually know and no forum nutjob will ever change that.

[Auzzie Wingman]

I haven't been following, but I can probably assume correctly from the last post that this thread has degraded into a bitter war over the small things.

To put it in the most basic way possible, the most BASIC way, there are developers out there who are finding the CPU underwhelming. It may or may not be the case, that this fact will affect certain game production toward the Wii U. Worst case scenario would be particular games not reaching the Wii U because of it. That's not to say that the Wii U is a flop, just that different development methods need to be adopted to make things work. Remember, that not every developer is complaining about this feature, nor are they predicting the Wii U's doom because of it alone.