You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
I've been looking at the NeoGaf threads, so it has more than just 32MB of EDRAM and it has like 2-4 MB more, and it has 1 MB of SRAM?
It does, probably used to emulate the high speed RAM in Wii for Wii games. It doesn't seem like it COULDN't be used for Wii U games though.
That's the thing, it has newer than what the R700 series contains (I'm trying to find a link where Arkam of NeoGaf clearly stated that it had some newer features ahead of Shader Model 4.0 and DX 10.1), so comparing it to Xenos based on SPU, ROPs etc is irrelevant because Latte would be more efficient in every way. It has a proper tessellation unit, something Xenos has to "fake" due to it having a limited tessellator (if it has one), it has Compute Shaders, something Xenos would take a performance hit on if it attempted it. It has a bunch of other features Xenos would need to "fake". All of this "faking" costs more power than if one were to do it naturally. Latte will do these things naturally, that has to be accounted for with the "multiplier". 1.5x is too low for those SPU's ROPs, and the features we know are in Wii U. The fact that DF ignored this proves just how idiotic they can be.
I've tried to figure it out, but it's too customized to conclude anything based on off-shelf products.
The only way the GPU would be weaker, would be if its SPU was much lower than 160, because that would mean the newer features it has couldn't be able to bring it up to at least par. There have been absolutey no credible reports of Latte being weaker at all. If it was simply "on par", Trine 2 would not have been possible (it has improved graphics, newer PhysX, 720p resolution (PS360 have dynamic resolution with max at 720p in less graphical areas), and is streaming a 480p signal to the gamepad). It apparently doesn't have enough power "left over" to bring up framerate to 60fps with the graphics they're throwing at it (which would require 2 - 3x more power aside from the graphics enhancements). A GPU simply 1.5x would not be able to do that, which is why I believe that 1.5x Xenos multiplier is too low.
It'll be nice if we could figure out exactly what the numbers are though, looks like the 320:16:8 are just educated guesses for now.
It's only been one day, and we have some speculated info that DF (and some trolls) pass as a fact. This is going to take more than one day to figure out as much as we can. DF, are idiots, at least GAF realizes that.
Though, I think we finally figured out how the RAM isn't the bottleneck we thought it was, so looking into the GPU was very helpful in that case.
And yeah, apparently Chipworks will be releasing CPU shots as well. That'll be interesting to see.
According to someone, I am a well known Troll.........not sure how.
But DF said the Wii U was identical to the PS360 back in November. So all this time they knew absolutely nothing, and all the anti-Nintendo virals were running with that article as proof the Wii U was weaker than PS360.
The best part is next--
However, the story of how these photos came into existence is a fascinating tale in itself: community forum NeoGAF noticed that Chipworks were selling Wii U reverse-engineering photography on its website, with shots of the principal silicon being offered at $200 a pop. Seeking to draw a line under the controversy surrounding the Nintendo hardware, a collection was started to buy the photos.
Free? lol no.
No, you don't. All you know are rumored specs leaked by the same suspect source. That's all anyone knows that isn't under NDA.
The Orbis specs are fake, btw.
fon1988 posted...I like playing games for fun.
No I enjoyed Mass Effect on my 360. As well as Fallout 3/NV, Skyrim, Bioshock, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, DMC, and many more.
I also highly enjoyed many games on the PS3.
What I enjoyed more though was playing Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, Brawl, Kirby's Return to Dreamland, Donkey Kong Country Returns, No More Heroes 1 and 2, Super Paper Mario, Metroid Prime Trilogy, and many more on my Wii. Processing power didn't result in any of those games being less fun than they could be.
I enjoy playing games on the PS3, my 360, and my Wii/Wii U, and processing power has nothing to do with it.
So as I stated before, I like playing games for fun.
icarus231 posted...parkourboybryan posted...So the GPU is approximately 1.5x more powerful, but unknown factors are preventing them from knowing much else. That's what I got from reading it.
Current "educated" guesses put it a bit farther ahead than DF ever gave it credit for, and much farther ahead than what's in the article in question.
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
jmichaelbp posted...I've been looking at the NeoGaf threads, so it has more than just 32MB of EDRAM and it has like 2-4 MB more, and it has 1 MB of SRAM?
It is used in Wii U mode.
The 2MB MEM0/EFB (framebuffer in Wii mode) is used as fast general purpose RAM in Wii U mode. Dunno about the 1MB SRAM (Wii texture cache)
Hm, actually, it seems to use at least 2.75MB of MEM0. They might be throwing in the texture cache SRAM as MEM0 too.
I'm not changing this until a new Jet Set Radio is announced. Started 10/13/11
DaLagga posted...fon1988 posted...I like playing games for fun.
I really don't understand why this isn't painfully obvious to everyone.
If it's true that Nintendo provided very little documentation about the hardware, then it seems little wonder that we've not seen better looking and performing games on the Wii U because devs are not able to program to take advantage of the hardware as much as they could be.
Nintendo is secretive for good reason. It has nothing to do with third parties and everything to do with their direct competitors.
guttertalk posted...If it's true that Nintendo provided very little documentation about the hardware, then it seems little wonder that we've not seen better looking and performing games on the Wii U because devs are not able to program to take advantage of the hardware as much as they could be.
Not sure about Nintendo not even providing tech specs, I've heard some devs from NeoGaf talk about clock speeds and such, and even GFLOPS. Some who suggested 600mhz clock were then told "a little too high", and even the 600GFLOPS were told "a little to high". They likely had specs, at least after the final dev kits that is.
According to someone, I am a well known Troll.........not sure how.
the GCN hardware in Durango and Orbis is in a completely different league
Graphics Core Next, which is AMD's name for their new, slightly less incompetent shader architecture.
Basically, they finally came out and admitted that regular Radeon cores are garbage, and that more robust GPU cores are a better idea.
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
a high end card gets bg3 1080p maxed around 200fps ~The Q on BF3.
FenderMaster posted...DaLagga posted...ElectricKaibutu posted...Wow. Today was the day that someone said "I like playing games for fun" on a forum for games and then got angrily ranted at.
Hey guys, chill out. I agree with you. The Wii U isn't close to Orbis and Durango in power. I wish it were, but it's not.
I was just pointing out that the guy who only said "I like playing games for fun" didn't deserve to get blasted.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting