Why is this thread still open, by the way? There isn't a single shred of truth in any of this. It's 100% fake in every way. If the specs were at least somewhat realistic, I could see this thread being left open, but these are not even possible.
Cheese-Muffins' forum posts
[QUOTE="Cheese-Muffins"][QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"] Sure... There's a 1-2 year gap between the Wii U and what ever Microsoft and Sony are putting together?... what is making you think that there wont be a graphical gap between them? also keeping in mind that Nintendo is the only company who has EVER withheld a graphical leap. Regardless of what "numbers"(number's which twice now I have said are not fact) I use it would be completely ignorant to assume there won't be a graphical difference.Grey_Eyed_Elf
Of course there will be a graphical leap over the Wii U. I never said there wouldn't be a gap, I'm just saying we don't know how big the gap is.
And if you say your numbers are not fact, then why even present them. Why say the following:
"...The Wii U console won't be anything more than a 0.5 improvement AT BEST over the current consoles...
Nothing is up in the air!... The Wii U will be a little better than current consoles and the PS4 and 720 will be a lot better than the Wii U"
It doesn't make sense.
You're statements are misinformed, though. That's the problem I have with them. You spout things off and have no proof to their backing. This is one of the causes of why people are so clueless about what's going on because you consistently have posters like yourself posting factually incorrect and opinionated statements, making it sound as if they are correct. It's annoying to come into threads and see the same misinformation posted around over and over because people either have an agenda or just clueless. I'm not saying you have one, though, I'm saying that you shouldn't post something that sounds so concrete like you do when it's wrong and/or completely opinionated.
It's one thing to say "Wii U will be weaker than next-gen... yadada.. etc." It's a completely different one to say what you're saying.
But yeah, hopefully everything will be revealed at E3.
[QUOTE="Cheese-Muffins"] Exactly as you said, it's a rumor. As for the two other points, those are meaningless. Point being you're getting some random multiplier saying that the Wii U is 0.5x more powerful than the 360 based on a rumored BOM, which doesnt tell us much. On top of that, you're basing that power on other next gen consoles, which we don't know about, again getting random multipliers that mean nothing. You say they are based on your own estimates? Estimates from where? Sure the PS4/720 will be more powerful, but who knows by how much? Grey_Eyed_ElfSure... There's a 1-2 year gap between the Wii U and what ever Microsoft and Sony are putting together?... what is making you think that there wont be a graphical gap between them? also keeping in mind that Nintendo is the only company who has EVER withheld a graphical leap. Regardless of what "numbers"(number's which twice now I have said are not fact) I use it would be completely ignorant to assume there won't be a graphical difference.
Of course there will be a graphical leap over the Wii U. I never said there wouldn't be a gap, I'm just saying we don't know how big the gap is.
And if you say your numbers are not fact, then why even present them. Why say the following:
"...The Wii U console won't be anything more than a 0.5 improvement AT BEST over the current consoles...
Nothing is up in the air!... The Wii U will be a little better than current consoles and the PS4 and 720 will be a lot better than the Wii U"
It doesn't make sense.
[QUOTE="Cheese-Muffins"]
[QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"]
The difference between the PS2/GC/XBOX were SMALL... Wii in comparison to the 360/PS3 is HUGE!
The main issue is that after the success of the Wii why would Nintendo bother with a HUGE improvement?...
- Mixed developer statements
- 1-2 years earlier than the competition
- $180 manufacturing costs
...from the looks of things they aren't.
The Wii U console won't be anything more than a 0.5 improvement AT BEST over the current consoles.
Nothing is up in the air!... The Wii U will be a little better than current consoles and the PS4 and 720 will be a lot better than the Wii U. Lets put it into numbers to make it easier to understand:
- 360/PS3... 1.00
- WiiU... 1.20-1.30
- PS4/720... 2.0
PS4/720 will give the graphical leap a generation should the Wii U isn't. Anyone thinks otherwise wait till E3 and prepare to be amazed at the wonderous beauty of ported 360/PS3 games with next to no visual improvements.
Grey_Eyed_Elf
I love how you can pull these numbers out of nowhere and state it like it's a fact, when in reality, you just end up looking foolish with your biased, preconceived opinions.
What numbers are from nohwere?
- Mixed developer statements... TRUE
- 1-2 years earlier than the competition... TRUE
- $180 manufacturing costs... Based of a rumour here:http://www.forgetthebox.net/mag/culture/forum-m/rumor-wii-u-price.php
These numbers here are purely my own estimates of what the situation will be never stated as fact, I just based them of the imformation I have above with a pinch of logic.
- 360/PS3... 1.00
- WiiU... 1.20-1.30
- PS4/720... 2.0
... Number's basically say the Wii U will be better than current hardware but not as good PS4/720.
Exactly as you said, it's a rumor. As for the two other points, those are meaningless. Point being you're getting some random multiplier saying that the Wii U is 0.5x more powerful than the 360 based on a rumored BOM, which doesnt tell us much. On top of that, you're basing that power on other next gen consoles, which we don't know about, again getting random multipliers that mean nothing. You say they are based on your own estimates? Estimates from where? Sure the PS4/720 will be more powerful, but who knows by how much?You say it's Nintendo's trend to release underpowered consoles but the Wii was really the first time they did that. And Sony had a "trend" of releasing under powered consoles but the PS3 was the first time they didn't do that. So basically everything is up in the air and nothing is for sure.[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"][QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"] Actually... you seem to be more deluded then they are. So you assume a $250-350 console released in 2012 will be comparable to a console a console released in 2014 for $400-500?... Keep in mind its Nintendo's trend to have lackluster performance, so applying their choices to other companies is ridiculous. You think Microsoft and Sony wont release consoles that are a lot more powerful than their current machines?... you sir are deluded, just look at the Vita.Grey_Eyed_Elf
The difference between the PS2/GC/XBOX were SMALL... Wii in comparison to the 360/PS3 is HUGE!
The main issue is that after the success of the Wii why would Nintendo bother with a HUGE improvement?...
- Mixed developer statements
- 1-2 years earlier than the competition
- $180 manufacturing costs
...from the looks of things they aren't.
The Wii U console won't be anything more than a 0.5 improvement AT BEST over the current consoles.
Nothing is up in the air!... The Wii U will be a little better than current consoles and the PS4 and 720 will be a lot better than the Wii U. Lets put it into numbers to make it easier to understand:
- 360/PS3... 1.00
- WiiU... 1.20-1.30
- PS4/720... 2.0
PS4/720 will give the graphical leap a generation should the Wii U isn't. Anyone thinks otherwise wait till E3 and prepare to be amazed at the wonderous beauty of ported 360/PS3 games with next to no visual improvements.
I love how you can pull these numbers out of nowhere and state it like it's a fact, when in reality, you just end up looking foolish with your preconceived opinions.
This thread is exactly why I barely read System Wars anymore. TC, instead of presenting a reasonable and thought-out debate with reasons why you think Nintendo is aimed at a younger audience to stimulate the thread, you just present some random YouTube video, passing it as fact, yet it offers no support to any sort of argument you think you're trying to make at all. And then you basically just reply with "lol u mad?" (like many other users on this board) when someone calls you out. You haven't given a single valid reason why you think Nintendo is aimed at kids, yet everyone has countered it already.
Anyway, to answer your initial question, as others have said, Nintendo is aimed at everyone, which is fairly clear by their marketing and their wide range of franchises and IPs.
You can't stuff a 4890 and x4 CPU in that small of a box at this point in time. Expect a 4650-level gpu.
gamecubepad
Expect nothing like a 4650-level gpu in the Wii U....:|
[QUOTE="Cheese-Muffins"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] why would it be expensive? 4 modules is $200, that comes in a package that suites the moduler design of PC's, they could easily design an 8 modules piece which strips down any excess logic that only is used for general purpose desktops to decrease die size, and create a cheaper package that gets direclty soldered onto the board.savagetwinkie
It being expensive was just an assumption. I don't see how you could strip down the design enough to make the price and size go down enough for it to be reasonable to sell in a console. And to me, that extra space and cost of going to 16 cores would be better suited off going into the GPU budget.
If you dont' understand the architecture or don't fully know hwo it works what does it matter if you can't see how it could be done? There are a lot of new instruction sets on the bulldozer that probably wouldn't be needed, make it an in-order-processor instead of a out-of-order which would greatly simply the chip.What. 32 nm 8-core Bulldozer is a 315mm^2 die. Xenon in the 360 alone was 176mm^2. So you're telling me that by removing components needed for other instruction sets not used by games consoles, and by making it in-order, you can turn a 16 core, which will already be much larger than the 8-core, small enough and inexpensive enough to fit into a console budget? Yes, I don't know the architecture specifically, and yes I don't know what you'd remove to optimize the CPU for a games console, but to me, that seems like quite a feat... Especially when, to me, a quad core, OOOE CPU would seem fine for next-gen consoles.
[QUOTE="Cheese-Muffins"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] bulldozers performance has a lot to do with current software being mostly single threaded and the OS's task scheduler, you can't apply a more embedded environment to a desktop environment and expect hardware to even perform remotely the same. Also you should realize that they wouldn't use an off the shelf version of the bulldozer, theres no benefit to using a full desktop processor when the environment is less general and focused on running games.savagetwinkie
Of course they wouldn't use an off-the-shelf component, but how would it be possible to create a gaming CPU with 16 bulldozer cores? I would assume that that would be too large for a console, as well as being too expensive.
why would it be expensive? 4 modules is $200, that comes in a package that suites the moduler design of PC's, they could easily design an 8 modules piece which strips down any excess logic that only is used for general purpose desktops to decrease die size, and create a cheaper package that gets direclty soldered onto the board.It being expensive was just an assumption. I don't see how you could strip down the design enough to make the price and size go down enough for it to be reasonable to sell in a console. And to me, that extra space and cost of going to 16 cores would be better suited off going into the GPU budget.
Log in to comment