Will Wii U still "blown away"?

#11b1gt0nePosted 1/16/2013 3:13:01 PM
nintendo_ken posted...
Can you not speak English properly? Even your topic title makes no sense. Go away.


lmao
#12guttertalkPosted 1/16/2013 3:18:25 PM
Yep, I was thinking the same as Not_King_Boo: The specs are still too vague to make much of them.

And it's still a very arguable proposal that losing money on a more powerful machine is advantageous. Given the current economy and the recent game trends, it seems to make less sense to lose money on a console. There's too much competition.

The previous generation seemed to show that services are as important as the hardware, given that it's more than just a game console.

I'm much more intrigued by how MS's XBL model will hold up against what Valve offers with Steam boxes and what we might see from an open platform like the Ouya.
#13darkjedilinkPosted 1/16/2013 3:18:52 PM
The biggest reason why those Chinese leaked specs are faulty should be blatantly obvious to anyone who knows anything about tech - there's no way MS is going to put an 8-core CPU into a console. Games won't make use of it. There's no reason to believe that games built solely for multi-GPU, high-end CPU PC's would make use of even a SIX-core CPU in the next ten years. Most still don't make effective use of a full QUAD-core, and a lot don't even make use of a full tri-core, though the number of games in this very last category are shrinking rapidly. I'd readily believe that it will make use of a quad-core. Those are commonplace in the PC world, and will be for a long time.

An eight-core, though? The only company making an eight-core CPU not meant for servers is AMD. Their last eight-core, based on Zambezi, was beaten in gaming performance by the quad-core of the same line, despite being clocked lower, with less cache AND half the cores. It also cost about three-eights the amount of money. Their current eight-core CPU, based on Piledriver, is beaten by the six-core of the same line, despite being clocked lower, with two less cores and 30 watts lower TDP. Keep in mind that every single one of these is beaten by almost every single one of Intel's quad cores in stock configurations for gaming.
---
Gaming is like a pair of boobs - Sony and Microsoft fight over whos boobs look more realistic, while Nintendo is about having fun with them - Walkiethrougie
#14MotiJrPosted 1/16/2013 3:25:08 PM
From: SuperShyGuy9000 | #007
Yes I messed up the title.

At first I was going to go with just "Wii U still blown away"

But thought to change it to "Will Wii U still [be] blown away" Didn't work out that well and I can't delete the topic to fix it.


I came in here just to figure out what you were trying to say.
---
Fanboys are a cancer to gaming but Sony fanboys are a particularly aggressive and repulsive form.
#15Nice_Kirbyfan9Posted 1/16/2013 3:26:19 PM
From: DiscostewSM | #010
Nice_Kirbyfan9 posted...
Well this is the Wii U board so were just going to believe whichever source makes the PS4 and 720 look weaker.


Like how trolls believe whatever source makes the PS4 or 720 look stronger?

What a thought provoking response that nobody saw coming.



*Waits for the next comedic genius to reply:
"Like how your post was thought provoking response that nobody saw kirby?"
---
If you disagree with the views expressed in this post, feel free to put me on ignore.
http://i46.tinypic.com/b83ehv.gif
#16aether17Posted 1/16/2013 5:43:07 PM
SuperShyGuy9000 posted...
Remember the rumor from a few days ago

From random Chinese site



Both are better than Wii U, the "leak from manufacturer" is actually about the difference between PS2 and Xbox (maybe a bit bigger, but of course that depends on what exactly the GPU in Wii U is. (4770, 4850, 4870, 5670, 6770).

I heard somewhere that Sony is waiting for Microsoft to finalize their RAM amount before they do theirs. If Microsoft is sticking with 8 GB DDR3 Standard PC RAM (slow bandwidth, but it's cheap, and not as bottlenecking as some may think), Sony will probably go for 4GB GDDR(3 or 5) RAM. They will NOT go for 8GB GDDR3/5 RAM, that's insane, the board layout would be filled with too many complex designs to keep something like that inside, so the prices of the manufacturing would likely go up as a result of that. It's either 8GB DDR3 RAM, or 4GB GDDR3/5 RAM. 4GB would still be good for next generation gaming (it's 8 times 512 MB, and Sony tends to multiply RAM each gen by 8). Crytek apparently wants 8GB. Looks like Microsoft would fit that in sort of well (then again, some of that 8 GB would be reserved for OS functions). Sony would be on the lower end, and I can't be sure that "faster bandwidth" giving PS4 much of an advantage (if any). PC's have been running DDR3 for games for a while, and it's going great. But Sony going for using GDDR RAM for OS functions is odd, maybe it'll be more like 3GB GDDR3/5 RAM for games, 1GB DDR3 RAM for OS.

The first one seems unlikely, but those specs wouldn't place Wii U in the same position Wii was with respect to PS360. The gap would be a bit bigger than DC, to Xbox. An HD 8000 series GPU is doubtful, but there's almost nothing new about those GPUs, they're re-branded from the 7000 series (which is a disappointment from AMD). So we shouldn't expect something like how Xenos was in the GPU world back in 2005 (it was based on the R520, a high-end card already out back then, with some enhancements which lead to the R600 series). Looks like it'll be the HD 9000 series "Volcanic Islands" GPU's which will be the true successors to the 7000 series, but we shouldn't expect those until well after 2013 (2014 - 2015). But even an HD 8850 GPU would be a pretty good graphics card upgrade from Xenos (it's a moderately large leap), just not "top of the line", it'll be a "mid-range" card (the 89xx cards would be considered "high end")

But recall that Wii was blown away due to not being able to use programmable shaders, and that lead to not being able to support the major engines of the 7th gen. Wii U can use UE4 as far as we can tell (Mark Rein would have said it wouldn't if he knew it couldn't), so even the lower settings wouldn't place Wii U games in a gap as large as Wii to PS360 since it'll at least have the shaders.

As for the CPU's, Sony going for an APU + GPU combination isn't the best choice for making a console, it'll be a leap from Wii U obviously, it won't "destroy" it like PS360 did to Wii. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft stayed with PowerPC. 8 "Enhanced Xenon" Cores perhaps? ;)
---
According to someone, I am a well known Troll.........not sure how.
#17fhsfootball74Posted 1/16/2013 6:01:33 PM(edited)
Kind of surprised that the Xbox is only rumored to have the 6670. A decent little card but honestly it is old by tech standerd now and it struggles with stuff like Battlefield 3 on anything other than medium. Even with a beefy CPU it wouldn't be a huge jump.
---
PSN- fhsfootball74 Nintendo Network- returnoftheryan
In SMOD we trust.
#18Mavrick588Posted 1/16/2013 6:54:22 PM
aether17 posted...
SuperShyGuy9000 posted...
Remember the rumor from a few days ago

From random Chinese site



Both are better than Wii U, the "leak from manufacturer" is actually about the difference between PS2 and Xbox (maybe a bit bigger, but of course that depends on what exactly the GPU in Wii U is. (4770, 4850, 4870, 5670, 6770).

I heard somewhere that Sony is waiting for Microsoft to finalize their RAM amount before they do theirs. If Microsoft is sticking with 8 GB DDR3 Standard PC RAM (slow bandwidth, but it's cheap, and not as bottlenecking as some may think), Sony will probably go for 4GB GDDR(3 or 5) RAM. They will NOT go for 8GB GDDR3/5 RAM, that's insane, the board layout would be filled with too many complex designs to keep something like that inside, so the prices of the manufacturing would likely go up as a result of that. It's either 8GB DDR3 RAM, or 4GB GDDR3/5 RAM. 4GB would still be good for next generation gaming (it's 8 times 512 MB, and Sony tends to multiply RAM each gen by 8). Crytek apparently wants 8GB. Looks like Microsoft would fit that in sort of well (then again, some of that 8 GB would be reserved for OS functions). Sony would be on the lower end, and I can't be sure that "faster bandwidth" giving PS4 much of an advantage (if any). PC's have been running DDR3 for games for a while, and it's going great. But Sony going for using GDDR RAM for OS functions is odd, maybe it'll be more like 3GB GDDR3/5 RAM for games, 1GB DDR3 RAM for OS.

The first one seems unlikely, but those specs wouldn't place Wii U in the same position Wii was with respect to PS360. The gap would be a bit bigger than DC, to Xbox. An HD 8000 series GPU is doubtful, but there's almost nothing new about those GPUs, they're re-branded from the 7000 series (which is a disappointment from AMD). So we shouldn't expect something like how Xenos was in the GPU world back in 2005 (it was based on the R520, a high-end card already out back then, with some enhancements which lead to the R600 series). Looks like it'll be the HD 9000 series "Volcanic Islands" GPU's which will be the true successors to the 7000 series, but we shouldn't expect those until well after 2013 (2014 - 2015). But even an HD 8850 GPU would be a pretty good graphics card upgrade from Xenos (it's a moderately large leap), just not "top of the line", it'll be a "mid-range" card (the 89xx cards would be considered "high end")

But recall that Wii was blown away due to not being able to use programmable shaders, and that lead to not being able to support the major engines of the 7th gen. Wii U can use UE4 as far as we can tell (Mark Rein would have said it wouldn't if he knew it couldn't), so even the lower settings wouldn't place Wii U games in a gap as large as Wii to PS360 since it'll at least have the shaders.

As for the CPU's, Sony going for an APU + GPU combination isn't the best choice for making a console, it'll be a leap from Wii U obviously, it won't "destroy" it like PS360 did to Wii. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft stayed with PowerPC. 8 "Enhanced Xenon" Cores perhaps? ;)


What's this?
Logic on the Wii U board!?

I feel like I just found an oasis in the desert, or seen a panda bear in the wild.
Very rare indeed
---
"Video-games are bad for you? That's what they said about Rock 'N' Roll"- Shigeru Miyamoto
#19PUNCHOUT1116Posted 1/16/2013 8:45:25 PM
nintendo_ken posted...
Can you not speak English properly? Even your topic title makes no sense. Go away.


You never know man, english may not be his first language, so be cool.
---
-
Good stuff
#20DarthFloatyPosted 1/16/2013 8:56:42 PM
aether17 posted...
SuperShyGuy9000 posted...
Remember the rumor from a few days ago

From random Chinese site



Both are better than Wii U, the "leak from manufacturer" is actually about the difference between PS2 and Xbox (maybe a bit bigger, but of course that depends on what exactly the GPU in Wii U is. (4770, 4850, 4870, 5670, 6770).

I heard somewhere that Sony is waiting for Microsoft to finalize their RAM amount before they do theirs. If Microsoft is sticking with 8 GB DDR3 Standard PC RAM (slow bandwidth, but it's cheap, and not as bottlenecking as some may think), Sony will probably go for 4GB GDDR(3 or 5) RAM. They will NOT go for 8GB GDDR3/5 RAM, that's insane, the board layout would be filled with too many complex designs to keep something like that inside, so the prices of the manufacturing would likely go up as a result of that. It's either 8GB DDR3 RAM, or 4GB GDDR3/5 RAM. 4GB would still be good for next generation gaming (it's 8 times 512 MB, and Sony tends to multiply RAM each gen by 8). Crytek apparently wants 8GB. Looks like Microsoft would fit that in sort of well (then again, some of that 8 GB would be reserved for OS functions). Sony would be on the lower end, and I can't be sure that "faster bandwidth" giving PS4 much of an advantage (if any). PC's have been running DDR3 for games for a while, and it's going great. But Sony going for using GDDR RAM for OS functions is odd, maybe it'll be more like 3GB GDDR3/5 RAM for games, 1GB DDR3 RAM for OS.

The first one seems unlikely, but those specs wouldn't place Wii U in the same position Wii was with respect to PS360. The gap would be a bit bigger than DC, to Xbox. An HD 8000 series GPU is doubtful, but there's almost nothing new about those GPUs, they're re-branded from the 7000 series (which is a disappointment from AMD). So we shouldn't expect something like how Xenos was in the GPU world back in 2005 (it was based on the R520, a high-end card already out back then, with some enhancements which lead to the R600 series). Looks like it'll be the HD 9000 series "Volcanic Islands" GPU's which will be the true successors to the 7000 series, but we shouldn't expect those until well after 2013 (2014 - 2015). But even an HD 8850 GPU would be a pretty good graphics card upgrade from Xenos (it's a moderately large leap), just not "top of the line", it'll be a "mid-range" card (the 89xx cards would be considered "high end")

But recall that Wii was blown away due to not being able to use programmable shaders, and that lead to not being able to support the major engines of the 7th gen. Wii U can use UE4 as far as we can tell (Mark Rein would have said it wouldn't if he knew it couldn't), so even the lower settings wouldn't place Wii U games in a gap as large as Wii to PS360 since it'll at least have the shaders.

As for the CPU's, Sony going for an APU + GPU combination isn't the best choice for making a console, it'll be a leap from Wii U obviously, it won't "destroy" it like PS360 did to Wii. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft stayed with PowerPC. 8 "Enhanced Xenon" Cores perhaps? ;)


This guy wins the thread.

Personally, I don't think it matters. Both will be a noticible gap above the Wii U. But neither is enough to "doom" it like some trolls say. And both will be a huge gap between the PS360. Overall, I'd believe one of them going with a somewhat weaker build and cheaper price, and the other being super powerful and overpriced. All speculation, of course.