Play4Fun

Before I get started, let me just make a few things clear. Everything I'm about to say is of course, speculation. I'm going off the assumption that the Wii U is indeed using a 4870 GPU and the Xbox 720 (or NextBox) is using a 6670. So I'm not trying to say "awesome look 100% comfirmed OMGZ" or anything like that lol. Again, this is all in-theory.

Also, I know, graphics aren't everything, but really we're all interested in the exact amount of power the Wii U will be packing. So this is just something to think about.

Now Epic recently came out and said that the Samaritan demo can be ran on hardware 10x more powerful than the 360. According to IGN's reports, the NextBox is 6x more powerful than the 360.

As I'm sure most of you have found out, the Wii U GPU, the 4870, is roughly 2x more powerful than the 6670 supposedly being used in the NextBox. In this case, that would mean that GPU-wise, the Wii U is 12x more powerful than the 360.


4870

Memory Bandwidth: 115.2 GB/sec
FLOPS: 1200 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 12000 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 30000 MTexels/sec

6670

Memory Bandwidth: 64 GB/sec
FLOPS: 768 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 6400 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 19200 MTexels/sec


So Epic has said that it takes 10 360 to run that demo in native 1080p, and if these rumors are true, the Wii U ends up over-achieving that number being 12x more powerful than the 360.

So in-theory, the Wii U might actually be able the Samaritan demo technology in 1080p. It's just something I realize and it's a pretty fun topic to speculate on. I wanna know what you guys think.

Dude....what....

A 4870 would NOT make Wii U 12x more powerful than 360! A 12x jump expectation for WIi U is completely unrealistic! It's even unrealistic for PS4/720.

See that? It takes a GPU with 2.5 TFLOPS to run Samaritan at 1080p 30fps.

We'd be lucky to get such GPUs from even PS4/720 in 2013.

It takes 4.4 times the power of 360 to run Samaritan in 720p and since PS4 & 720 will be no doubt be more powerful than that when they launch in 2013 (expecting 6 -8 x more pwoerful) they can run Samaritan at 720p all effects.

Wii U is expected to be 3 - 5x 360, so either it can run it at 720p reduced effects or sub-hd.

Don't get people's hopes up with false information.

Except that's what modern games run at. The Wii U is 6 years later and its power should reflect that.

Except that's what modern games run at. The Wii U is 6 years later and its power should reflect that.

Games built FOR the Wii-U will run at 1080P such as first party and 3rd party exclusives.
But since MS and Sony will be launching after Wii U, their consoles will be more powerful than Wii U (though a smaller gap than this gen).

So games built for 720 or PS4 and ported to the Wii-U will have to be down-scaled for Wii-U since it won't handle the exact same things those consoles can. You know, kinda like games that can run on PC this gen are down-scaled  so they can run on PS360?

Why does no one seem to understand what I'm saying?

Wii will most surely be closer to the 720 and PS4 than the Wii is to the current 360 and PS3.

The problem with the Wii is it's ~DX7 GPU didn't have programmable shaders and it didn't have a multi-core CPU which made it extremely hard to scale games down to the system. Next gen though, all the systems will have multi-core CPUs and it'll more than likely come down to WiiU having a DX10.1 GPU while the PS4/720 will end up with a DX11 GPU. We'll have to wait until all the systems are out to see how big of a gap there is between the WiiU and the 720/PS4.

So really in the end, the Wii U should be able to receive better port support. By mid generation (next gen) games running on PS4 and 720 boxes at 1080p and 60FPS can get downscaled to 720p@30fps for wiiu.  How good the support is depends on how good a job Nintendo does catering third parties and how well Wii U sells before PS4/720 are released and after.

The gap next gen will be more similar to PS2-GC-Xbox than Wii-360-PS3.

I have no doubt Wii U will get next gen ports since the industry has become so multiplat-dependent. What i'm worried about is how well will devs take advantage of the Wii U tablet. That thing has so much damn potential for gaming it would be an outright shame if it isn't taken as much advantage of as possible.

I'm optimistic that it'll end well though because the tablet isn't a completely new controller like Wii-remote was. It's a familiar dual analog with a screen and other enhancements.

Why do people keep saying Nintendo are targeting the hardcore only with Wii U?

Did no one listen to the speech before the controller reveal?

Iwata (I think it was) specifically said they were trying to make a console where both the hardcore and casual market could thrive.

It's like the same thing that happened to Wii when people ignored the 'blue ocean' speech that was given and then were surprised when the casual market ate up the Wii.

I can't see SSB being SSB with a whole bunch of Street Fighter Characters in it.

3rd party Characters like Mega Man and such are more suited for the franchise and most of the chars should be from the Nintendo Universe.

Too many 3rd party characters would ruin the game's atmosphere (or whatever) in my opinion.

I apologize if I was incorrect on the potential power differential between the current systems (360 and PS3) and Cafe. I am in no way whatsoever an expert on computer or graphical tech and just went by what I've seen most media outlets reporting which is that the core components of Cafe are "similar" to the build of the 360 but "a bit more powerful" and "slightly more powerful than the PS3". On a side note, if it really does have 512MB of ram won't that limit just how much more graphical detail is capable on the machine regardless on the GPU? 512 is what the 360 and PS3 are already using, it seems like it should be higher but that's just me. Although it is possible it could be more since the reports do usually say "at least 512mb of RAM", either way while as I've stated before I doubt we'll see Microsoft or Sony packing 8GB of ram in the next systems as some developers requested I do expect at least 2GB, wouldn't the difference between 2GB and 512MB (or even as high as 1GB if Cafe was to have that much) be considerable as far as potential capabilities go? (legitimate question)

I'm no expert on tech either. I just know a few things here and there. =p

Yeah. 512 MB RAM would be extremely crippling for the machine but if Nintendo is trying to cater to 3rd parties like the rumours say, they'll put at least 1 GB to 1.5 GB in it hopefully.

Either way, it's my understanding that Sony with the PS4 will continue using the Cell processor by simply improving it with modifications, reports of which I've seen stating that the capabilities of the enhancements expected should double the raw power of the processor. So the real question I guess is how does the supposed components in Cafe compare to what would be the result of doubling the capabilities of Cell. The answer to which I can completely admit I have absolutely no idea on and am actually quite curious if anyone else here knows more on that kind of stuff. It's also my understanding that strictly utilizing GDDR3 RAM in the PS4 as rumored instead of the PS3's current combination of GDDR3 and XDR will also cut production costs and increase performance, though again that's just what I've heard others speculate, I do not know what kind of actual effects that has on performance.

Yeah, Sony will most likely continue with the Cell. Devs are more familiar with it now, so it won't be as hard to develop for next gen.

The rumoured tech in Cafe would be more than double the  cell's so we can expect  much more than double the  increase in power from Sony .

Also, I don't think Sony will use GDDR3 RAM. More like GDDR5.

Another question I'd have is doesn't utilizing an improved (modified) Cell processor for the PS4 allow Sony to save a ton of money on development? It's well known that over $600 Million was spent on development of Cell (although Sony did not bare the burden of the costs alone as it was a joint development project) and if using an improved Cell processor would save a lot of money in the R&D phase of the console, couldn't that allow them a higher budget for the GPU and other areas? I'd like to clarify these are not expectations but rather actual questions, I truly have no idea about that kind of stuff, it just seems like using a modified Cell would be very cheap compared to what they spent actually developing the cell and if that's the case it would make sense that they could reallocate some of those funds to improving other areas of the tech (or researching new innovations). Also, wouldn't using an enhanced version of the current Cell processor also keep production costs down considerably allowing for additional improvements and advancements while still keeping the target price in a respectable range?

I'm sure since they're not developing a new architecture like last time, that should save them a ton of money in R&D.

Since we're discussing the PS4, Sony execs have recently officially confirmed funds are currently being spent towards it's development (not that we didn't already know that but it's confirmation nonetheless)

Yeah. Next gen will be upon us before we know it.

It seems you want a noticeable increase in PS4's power. If NGP is anything to go by, Sony will be packing some powerful tech in PS4 even if they're more Conservative than PS3. They don't have a disk format to bring up expenses this time, so that means more money for the actual console.

"Sony and MS's consoles are going to be more powerful since they will come out after Cafe, but the gap will be small and all 3 consoles will be able to share ports unlike this generation."

That's one area where I have to disagree, I don't even view Cafe is truly ushering in the next generation of consoles because of the fact that according to most reports it's barely superior in power than the PS3...which to me makes it Nintendo's offering of a console finally worthy of the current generation whereas the Wii is more comparable to the systems of the previous generation just attaching motion controls. If Cafe truly is barely beyond the level of the PS3 that would mean that for the gap between the PS4/720 and Cafe to be minimal than Sony and Microsoft would have to make minimal advances to the power of their consoles...something I just don't see happening.

Oh really? Rumours say Nintendo is using an ATI 4850/4870 and a 3-core IBM CPU. That would make it much more powerful than PS3. So I don't know what you are talking about. There is NO feasible tech MS and Sony can use to blow away that tech especially when they'll be looking to launch at least a year after Cafe so it doesn't get two or more years on the market by itself.

If Cafe is barely more powerful than systems that were released 5 and 6 years ago than it shows that Nintendo obviously did not attempt to capitalize on advances in technological capabilities, something that Microsoft and Sony are both well known for doing and I just don't see any way that they don't do so for the 2014 consoles.

Maybe MS is well known for powerful tech, although this is only their second generation.

But Sony has never had the most powerful console in any of their previous gens. Both N64 and GC (plus XBox) were more powerful than PS1 and PS2.

This is Sony's first gen being the most powerful and it didn't end as well for them as the last ones.

Do I think they'll ignore Cafe? No, however...using the userbase as an example isn't the best way to go here. Look at the userbase of the Wii yet it can't be denied that 3rd party developers HAVE largely ignored the Wii in favor of the PS3 and the 360 and your kidding yourself if you believe that the 360 and PS3 having far superior power than the Wii isn't part of the reason for that.

It certainly isn't anything to do with ease of development for the consoles because it's well known that the PS3 is by far the most complex console to develop for yet the PS3 still has vastly superior 3rd party support (including exclusives) than the Wii.

The Xbox 360 was the base console for building games (due to the architecture) before porting to PS3. PS3 was similar in power to 360 so it was easier to port to it than Wii. Plus the combined userbase of the 360 and PS3 are more than Wii's alone.

The Wii's architecture was out-dated and almost required building the game from ground-up for it. That's why devs didn't port to it. It was too much of a hassle.

Nintendo is said to be using an easy-to-port to architecture, so Cafe won't be facing that problem. The architecture will similar to the one used for PC games and the 360, so ports will be easy.

why does the PS3, the most expensive system to develop for have a line up of 3rd party exclusives superior to that of the cheaper to develop for Wii? Your obviously overestimating the effect of development costs on a companies decision on what console to make AAA titles for.

Erm...3rd party exclusives are paid for by Sony. Devs get money to build those games. Nintendo doesn't really money-hat with 3rd parties for exclusives. They rely on their first party.

The reason is the exact same reason behind your statement that Cafe's touchscreen will lead to games the other consoles won't have. The AAA titles on the 360 and PS3 can't be on the Wii, the system simply doesn't have the power to support them. So who's to say the same won't happen again? With Cafe being barely above this generations most powerful console it would be easy for Microsoft and Sony to create consoles much more powerful than Cafe for a 2014 launch. If it happens we could once again see the power differential force developers into a position where games on the consoles from Microsoft and Sony could not be done on Cafe.

It won't happen again because, like I said before, Nintendo is using a familiar architecture and there won't be an HD gap nor a huge power gap between the consoles like this gen.

Games on 360 and PS3 CAN be put on Wii. It's just that it requires ALOT of scaling down and rebuilding  from the ground-up. That's just too much of a hassle for third parties and not worth the investment.

And even the touchscreen may not make as much of a difference as your stating, it COULD but there is no guarantee. How many quality titles were exclusive to the Wii because of the motion control innovation? Did it ensure the PS3 and 360 couldn't get some of the biggest games of the generation? In fact the exact opposite occured, 3rd party developers focused on developing AAA titles that took advantage of the raw power of the 360 and PS3 instead of focusing on titles that took advantage of the innovation of the Wii.

The motion controls did make a difference. That's why Wii is highest selling console this gen and why the others brought out their own motion hardware.

Nintendo didn't make motion controls to get 3rd parties. They made it to get the new audience.

Kinect was indeed a "me too" product because if it wasn't for the Wii Microsoft would have never developed and released it.

And I don't know where you got the idea that Move didn't sell well from because Move was a MASSIVE success for Sony, they couldn't even keep up with demand for the first 5 months after release and has sold over 8 million units so far, certainly behind Kinect which has sold over 10 million but still not bad for a product that "offered nothing new" (when in fact it was the first and STILL the only product in console gaming to offer true 1:1 motion capture).

Kinect was not as much of a 'me too' product as Move was. Move was too similar to Wii-mote while Kinect differentiated itself.

Kinect also moved hardware for MS, and a good number of software. Move didn't do much of that for PS3.

DAY ONE!...if I have the money...

If what you fear is the games becoming all realistic, there's nothing to fear! They'll just look better and bigger, that's all.

A StarFox and F-Zero at launch with awesome online!
Of course a Smash Bros and battalion Wars 3...also with awesome online!