You can only go so far by saying it has improved architecture and overall a more modern design. The reality is mhz/ghz speed is part of the formula on how you work out the speed of cpu's and its a big part too but certainly superior cpu architecture can make up the difference and surpass it.
However the reality is the wii u cpu in overall performance appears to be less than 360 and PS3. Some games have had cpu intensive features removed, particle effects, physics engines and other more cpu intensive bits. A common missing feature is 3D support which is available on 360 and PS3 versions of games but removed from wii u versions. 3D is cpu intensive.
Not forgetting developer reports that have stated they have had a few problems getting wii u versions of 360/ps3 games to run as well due to the cpu.
The other false hope is the gpgpu. It seems not one concrete bit of information has come out to support this and the gpu in the wii u doesn't appear to be very large or power hungry and is unlikely to feature much cpu support at all.
I've currently got 2 wii u games and no wii u console as my console hasn't been delivered yet despite being pre-ordered months ago. As it stands though I'm wondering if there will be an early price drop. I'm a big fan of Nintendo games but it just feels like the console is too expensive for what it is. I feel the pricing should have been £179.99 and £229.99 in the Uk. I don't believe the wii u is profitable after 1 game for Nintendo I really believe its very profitable without additional purchases and unless they are going to release the information to prove what they say I just can't believe it. There just isn't enough in the wii u to make it that expensive to make.
I really want a wii u but must admit Nintendo are seriously taking the p**s with their spec and pricing. I've been seen as Mr Negative I think around here because I predicted a low specification for the wii u that would be current gen performance not next gen and to be honest I realise now I've been a bit of an optimist. I set my target low and was hoping to be pleasantly surprised but its actually come in under the specification I was expecting. I don't have a problem with the spec as such because I love Nintendo games but the pricing is clearly ridiculous for what it is. It is a complete mystery to me why Nintendo didn't just make the wii u go just beyond current gen even if a marginal difference. I don't understand why they have produced a weaker console than those that have been on the market for 7 years.
I know it has its strengths and is superior for some parts of the specification but the weak cpu will prevent it running many 360 and PS3 games fully/properly.
Its really the pricing I have issue with though. It just doesn't merit it's retail price.
I am honestly in shock and awe here. I have a problem with so much of what you just said. Let's take it, inch by inch, and tear these statements down.
You can only go so far by saying it has improved architecture and overall a more modern design. The reality is mhz/ghz speed is part of the formula on how you work out the speed of cpu's and its a big part too but certainly superior cpu architecture can make up the difference and surpass it.
You just took like every other aspect -- that actually have a larger impact on a processor's preformance -- and threw it all out the window in favor of CPU GHZ Myth. IN looking at ARM's Cortex-A9, it is vastly suprior to the Intel Pentium 4 processors, which where clocked at a higher clock speed, and just barely being surpased by Intel's Atom processor (based of x86). And this was in 2010, with the ARM processor being clocked at 500mhz and the Atom 1.6 GHZ.
(
source)
And looking at more modern comparison, the ARM Cortex-A15 completely shatters Intel's Atom processors, while still doing well (but being defeated, of course) by the Intel Core i3. And, as you can see in the original source link above, two years ago they were being surprased by the lower powered Intel CPU's, now they fly past then -- and still being clocked lower. (
source link).
As you can see -- clock speed might be a part of the formula, sure -- but it's a small part compared to the other parts you seem to want to ignore. And this is talking specifically mobile processors -- let's not forget the IBM PowerPC 750 series (assuming the hacker is correct, of course) is not a mobile product, and in it's hay day was surprising Intel's processors -- EVEN THOUGH THE IBM'S WERE CLOCKED LOWER. And this is before the newer, modern technology IBM packed into the "Espresso" was added to the series. In fact, I would argue it is different enough to be an entirely different class of processor -- just like I wouldn't put the Intel i7 in the same league as the Intel Pentium 4 processor. The technology behind these are far different, even though they are based off the same architecture.
So let me state, however, if one could pack a high, 3.0ghz processor, with high eDRAM, a L3 Cache, and all these other advancements then yes -- it would be a far better processor. But technology has it's limits, and everyone has a budget to live by. Nintendo can not afford to sell something at a loss -- heck, Sony can't afford to do that anymore. Which bring's me to my next point.
What do you think the PS Orbis and Xbox 720 will have? Some super, 1 Tghz processor, with 1GB of eDRAM, and all these other advancements? Giving the "next gen" consoles a 10 - 20 percent jump in preformance over the Wii U? (which, let me state for the record -- I know these numbers aren't possible, I know you don't think this -- I am merely showing you how absurd your comment sound to me). This just isn't feasible, and absolutely nothing points to that. Every rumor -- even the famour rumor you originally quoted, all those months ago -- said that the Xbox 720 will be about 4 - 6 times the power of the Xbox 360. Which, by the way, if the Wii U is 2 -3 times the power of the 360, means the 720 will be 2 - 3 times more powerful than the Wii U. Which, in terms of technology, is not that big of a leap. In fact, a smart developer would make a next gen game on the Wii U first, then port it to the others to ensure all games worked fine. Since that is what they have done this generation -- make the game for the Xbox 360, and port it to the more powerful PS3 (which I believe it is, and looking at some of the first party exclusives proves me right).
Its really the pricing I have issue with though. It just doesn't merit it's retail price.
Really? The console is leaps and bounds more powerful then the original Wii, and it was sold originally at $249.99. This is 50 - 100 more, and again, way more powerful with better technology, more storage, and more applications then the Wii started. The Wii U with all the video applications and TVii that will be released soon make the Wii U even more valuable then the Wii was originally, and even today. I gladly paid 399 with tax, a Wii U and Black Ops 2. Sure, value is in the eye of the beholder, but I don't think the majority of people will see the Wii U as "not valuable" and "not worth the price". And by the way over 400K people agree with me, and the numbers will continue to grow as the Wii U becomes available in other countries. Those numbers were US only, and although not a knock out like the Wii was (it may have been if supply was there), it is doing as well as the PS3 did in it's first few weeks. And that is a good judgement I think -- considering the PS3 ended up doing well.
