Why Wii U is weaker than the 360 and PS3, explained intuitively.

#71tizzywilkillyouPosted 1/12/2013 12:05:18 PM
Asellus posted...
And the fact that the modern Core architecture from Intel is based on Pentium 3 quickly removes the ammunition from those claiming "lulz it's based on broadway/gekko; it must be horrible and old".

It might be based on it in the sense that "After Net Burst flopped Intel scrapped the P4 design and went back to the P3's for a base to start building off of" but it's hardly unaltered, there's at least a half-dozen tocks in there from Core 1 to current Sandy Bridge chips.

The Wii U cpu on the other hand really does look to be just a tri-core broadway with more cache and clock speed. I'm not saying it's worse than Xenon or Cell but it is bloody disappointing it's not wiping the floor with them.


Not the point. Simply stating what a CPU is "based on" alone doesn't definitively tell us anything (and many here treat it as if it does).

And "really does look to be" based on what? We still don't know much for certain. And the TC here failed horrendously. You have no at least recognize that much. Classic case of a guy with just enough knowledge to get himself into trouble trying to sound smart and completely failing.
---
i5 2550k, 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3@1600mhz, EVGA GTX 550ti, 120GB OCZ SSD, 22in/1680x1050
#723D_Shado(Topic Creator)Posted 1/12/2013 12:36:18 PM
tizzywilkillyou posted...
Asellus posted...
And the fact that the modern Core architecture from Intel is based on Pentium 3 quickly removes the ammunition from those claiming "lulz it's based on broadway/gekko; it must be horrible and old".

It might be based on it in the sense that "After Net Burst flopped Intel scrapped the P4 design and went back to the P3's for a base to start building off of" but it's hardly unaltered, there's at least a half-dozen tocks in there from Core 1 to current Sandy Bridge chips.

The Wii U cpu on the other hand really does look to be just a tri-core broadway with more cache and clock speed. I'm not saying it's worse than Xenon or Cell but it is bloody disappointing it's not wiping the floor with them.


Not the point. Simply stating what a CPU is "based on" alone doesn't definitively tell us anything (and many here treat it as if it does).

And "really does look to be" based on what? We still don't know much for certain. And the TC here failed horrendously. You have no at least recognize that much. Classic case of a guy with just enough knowledge to get himself into trouble trying to sound smart and completely failing.


Proof?
#73F_WolfPosted 1/12/2013 12:47:01 PM(edited)
Except processor architectural over time is inherently better and has never been able to be compared to older architecture.

Except more threads has never equaled more final power, only more potential power. Less threads will always beat out more threads if the total power output is the same, and even if it is less, because more threads is only helpful for multitasking, and it always takes years for devs to get used to coding on a new system and utilizing all threads.

Except CPU offloading it North/South Bridge and GPU has been a thing for 5 years so process power alone means nothing.

Except CPU/RAM architectural tie ins have a huge difference on how overall power plays out because of bottlenecking.

Except GPU plays a far larger part in how good games run then CPU ever has. A Dual-Core Pentium can still play newer games on max settings as long as your GPU is up to snuff.

Your analogy is pretty much wrong in every way. I'm not pro-WiiU anymore then I am anti-WiiU, and the WiiU may in fact have less power then a SNES, but TC post is not a indication to prove anything but his own lack of knowledge about how processors work.