Hardware Rep says "Wii U 19x more powerful than PS3"

[Ericthegreat]

Wait so wii u can emulate thye ps3 ?

 

[Janthran]

Wait so wii u can emulate thye ps3 ?

No, the Wii U isn't hacked yet.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Even if you match N64 to PSX then Sony wins, don't they?

Your argument was about power. The N64 is more powerful than the PSX. The GC is more powerful than the PS2. Even the SNES was at least on par with the Genesis, with the Genesis having "blast processing" via the CPU while the SNES had much better graphical and audio capabilities.

Okay then, but I still insist on pairing the GC against the Xbox instead of PS2.

Alright, but the statement of Nintendo not being much for power is still false. The actual difference in capabilities of the PS2 vs GC vs XBox is far less than the Wii vs PS360, just like the console generations before them.

 

[the_randomizer]

Blast processing was a sneaky marketing ploy on Sega's part (but it worked very well), a mere euphemism for a higher-clocked CPU than the Super NES. The Snes was still on par when it came to CPU power, but it outright killed the Genesis/Megadrive with its more advanced graphics and sound capabilities The N64 was the most powerful fifth generation console (yes, even more so than the Playstation), plus it was the first console to use a real 64-bit CPU and had very quick loading times. But there were two fatal flaws, their decision to use cartridges and the 4KB of texture memory, and in turn deterred many third party companies as a result. As for the the Gamecube, it was on par with the Xbox in terms of hardware, despite what any PS2 fanboy might have said back then, and had many excellent games that I still play after eleven years of owning one.

The Gamecube's Flipper GPU slaughtered the PS2. Yes, the PS2 had a "higher" polygon count, but that was before textures, lighting/shadows were applied to the Gourad-shaded polygons. Once all lighting/textures were applied, the in-game count rarely exceeded 8 or 9,000,000/second on average. The Gamecube has been known to exceed 20,000,000/second at 60 frames per-second in several games, such as Rouge Squadron 2: Rouge Leader. But the average was around 12,000,000 polygons/triangles per second.

I firmly believe that the Wii U will dominate the eighth-generation market. Why, you ask? Simple, Nintendo is becoming their old selves once more, much like the days on the Snes, with immense third-party support. Yes, I believe they're returning to their past days of glory.

 

[omgpwn666]

I know the Wii U is more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3 (obviously) but not 19x more powerful. Maybe... 6x? No idea.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Even if you match N64 to PSX then Sony wins, don't they?

Your argument was about power. The N64 is more powerful than the PSX. The GC is more powerful than the PS2. Even the SNES was at least on par with the Genesis, with the Genesis having "blast processing" via the CPU while the SNES had much better graphical and audio capabilities.

The only thing the Genesis did better was have a better CPU and internal ROM. Every other category, SNES wins.

 

[Lurker2]

Besides the recent handhelds versus the PSP/Vita and the gameboy versus the Gamegear/Nomad /Lynx Nintendo has rarely been that weak hardware wise and honestly Nintendo won profit wise 7th generation since 360/PS3 were pretty much bleeding money. So anyone saying the PS3/360 were that sucessful really haven't looked at the numbers.

Playstation 3 lost around 4 Billion not counting the possible profit from 2012.
MS Entertainment and Device Division lost around 6 billion not counting the possible profit from 2012. It includes other devices like the Zune but still.
The fact of the matter is the next release of consoles might mean the death of PS/Xbox.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Besides the recent handhelds versus the PSP/Vita and the gameboy versus the Gamegear/Nomad /Lynx Nintendo has rarely been that weak hardware wise and honestly Nintendo won profit wise 7th generation since 360/PS3 were pretty much bleeding money. So anyone saying the PS3/360 were that sucessful really haven't looked at the numbers.

Playstation 3 lost around 4 Billion not counting the possible profit from 2012.
XBox lost around 4 billion and if you don't count those numbers the 360 has barely broke even.
The fact of the matter is the next release of consoles might mean the death of PS/Xbox.

Believe me man, on this site, nobody is going to take you seriously or even give you the slightest thought that that might happen. Even though this site is pretty damn pro-Nintendo, people bash the fuck out of Nintendo.

 

[Lurker2]

Besides the recent handhelds versus the PSP/Vita and the gameboy versus the Gamegear/Nomad /Lynx Nintendo has rarely been that weak hardware wise and honestly Nintendo won profit wise 7th generation since 360/PS3 were pretty much bleeding money. So anyone saying the PS3/360 were that sucessful really haven't looked at the numbers.

Playstation 3 lost around 4 Billion not counting the possible profit from 2012.
XBox lost around 4 billion and if you don't count those numbers the 360 has barely broke even.
The fact of the matter is the next release of consoles might mean the death of PS/Xbox.

Believe me man, on this site, nobody is going to take you seriously or even give you the slightest thought that that might happen. Even though this site is pretty damn pro-Nintendo, people bash the fuck out of Nintendo.

I'm pretty sure if they do the research and see that the PS3/Xbox have been bleeding money they will see the companies have to make a drastic change next generation. They cannot just go and make a $500+ system at launch with a loss on each one sold.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[Ericthegreat]

Wait so wii u can emulate thye ps3 ?

No, the Wii U isn't hacked yet.

Orly? BUT PPL TOLD ME THAT ID THE SYSTEM 10x AS STRONG iT CaN DO EMUs

---

 

[Deleted_171835]

Give me one example of companies doing this in the past. It's simply not logical.

It is logical because it's common sense information. They're not revealing anything critical by stating that the console is a certain amount more powerful than the competition. Considering that the previous console generation was years ago, it's expected that the Wii U would be significantly more powerful.

Why would Nintendo release such a pointless statement that explicitly states that their console is "19x more powerful" than the competition? There's no point. They've already release the series of both the GPU and CPU, so that people who know their hardware stuff can easily see the significant performance boost that the Wii U will provide on average. So really, Nintendo have already released this "19x more powerful" information. Saying 19x times more powerful is probably just an easier way to explain specs to the average consumer.

The series of the GPU and CPU don't mean much in terms of actual performance. All it tells us is that it's modern tech.

Just look at the AMD Radeon HD 7350, the lowest end model of the 7000 series. At 104GFLOPS with 80 SPUs, it's arguably less powerful than the 360's GPU (ATI Radeon X1800).

Saying that the Wii U is 19x more powerful would be the most significant info regarding the specs that they've released so far (aside from RAM - 2GB). That's not something you go around telling random showfloor reps.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[kristianity77]

Everyone and every company has differing values about what constitutes something being X times more powerful than something else.

For me, if a Wii U could run a game that is of similar standard to 360/PS3 19 times at the same time (if it were possible i mean - running the same game from one console out to 19 different screens with 19 players all playing at the same time but being computed by one Wii U - then id be a believer

 

[goncalodoom]

how is bayonetta better on xbox 360 than ps3? I always play it with no slow down or any problems. cept' mines is hacked.

http://www.eurogamer...yonetta-faceoff

Bayonetta PS3 is horrid compared to the 360 version.

you shouldnt even compare those versions since the PS3 port was the worst ive ever seen in this generation...

http://www.eurogamer...biggest-failure

 

[Alexrose]

Going on a logic something like this :
- If two PC's have the same GPU but the processor is double the power then the PC can do twice as much and so has double the gaming power.
- If two PC's have the same proc but the GPU is double the power then the PC is double the gaming PC.
therefore
- If one PC has double the processor AND has double the GPU then the PC is 4x the Gaming PC (2x2)

if we just multiply out all the parts here ... (and I'm guessing on these numbers, of course)

Wii U vs PS3
processor 1.5x
GPU 2x
drive speed 3x
RAM 2x

(2 x 2 x 3 x 1.5)
That's already 16x right there. If you bend the rules a little bit I'm sure you can get 19x easily.

I can't believe some of you guys actually believe that if you double the RAM in a machine and get a GPU with twice the clock frequency it means that machine is now 4x as good. You think if your GPU/CPU are shit you can just double up your dimm slots with some shitty 800mhz ram and now you get double the performance? You're only as good as your weakest component.

And one of you honestly tried to say that the DVD read speed was 3x faster, therefore you multiply how good your machine is by 3? You can't be serious. Like.. you had honestly better be trolling or you have some serious issues with even basic computing concepts and you should really go and research hardware properly before you even try and READ a discussion about it, let alone post and vehemently argue pure bullshit.

There are PCs that are 19x more powerful than a PS3, sure. The Wii U is not.

Let's use benchmarks.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

They're going to use a modified E6760, which scored 873.

The PS3 is based off a 7800 GTX, which scored 570.

So the GPU is 1.5x as good. Let's be really nice and say the fact that it's modified and stuck on the same chip as the CPU can even make it be 2-3x as good.

It has 4x as much RAM. Though we don't know the clock speeds.

And the CPU is about the same (or worse).

You don't multiply those numbers together now, but even if you did, which is stupid, and even being as optimistic as possible, that'd bench it as 12x as good. And again, this is a RIDICULOUS comparison. It's not even close to 19x as good; it's a completely ludicrious notion that I'm surprised you guys are even entertaining. To put it bluntly: If you think that the Wii U could even be close to 19x as good as the PS3, you're being fucking stupid. And massively overoptimistic. Try more like 1.5x as good, 2 at a push, is what you can expect from the Wii U.

Not that the console's going to be bad; it's going to be great. But it's not going to be a technical marvel outside of the controller being pretty nifty.

Lol, this seems highly unlikely. If there was consumer hardware 19x more powerful than the PS3 there would be fullspeed emulators out. The most powerful consumer PC hardware is nowhere near being that powerful yet, and that costs many times more than the Wii U.

There is consumer hardware 19x more powerful than the PS3, just about. But most people can't afford such luxuries, and that's beside the point. Consoles have become massively complicated in recent years. It'd be an insane job to try and make a ps3 emulator, even if you had 50x the power a ps3 had.

 

[Foxi4]

Alexrose is entirely right - you're not supposed to multiply the results, you're supposed to count the average of the performance increase. Say, if a CPU is two times as powerful and the GPU is four times as powerful, the machine is not 2*4=8 times as powerful - it's 2+4/2 = 3 times as powerful.

Component #1 (performance increase) + Component #2 (performance increase) + Component #3 (performance increase) (...) / No. of Components = Average Performance Increase.

...and even that isn't a fair measure - it's a measure of raw power. The actual performance depends on how the SDK works and whether it takes full advantage of the hardware or not, and it rarely does.

I'm willing to wager that the hardware is about two, three times as powerful as the PS3, but not x19 - that's just wishful thinking.

 

[Maxternal]

@[member='Alexrose']
dude, calm down. It would help you to read some of my later posts (or even just the last line of my post you quoted). That "math" was just screwing around.

 

[KingVamp]

19x? Awesome! Is my wii u going to melt through my whole stand after only a few minutes of play? I'm I going get my wii u with separated parts and payments?



Honestly 3-4x is good enough. Should be enough to be future proof. Predicting others to be 5-6x as much right?

 

[Foxi4]

Blast processing was a sneaky marketing ploy on Sega's part (but it worked very well), a mere euphemism for a higher-clocked CPU than the Super NES.

That's not entirely true - there was a number of things in the "Blast Processing" bag apart from the CPU - the idea was that the console was equipped with a DMA controller which allowed simultaneous writing and reading from a part of the memory. In other words, it was taking the toll off the CPU by using DMA copying. Blast Processing as a term came from a Sega employee's statement which was as follows: "blasting data into DAC's" - what he meant was that by incredibly fast copying of palettes independently from the CPU and between VBlanks, the Genesis was able to display a full 512 colour palette (for a particular element, for example a sprite or a background) despite technically not supporting one hardware-wise - something the SNES was unable to do. You know where the "Blast" came from now.

Was the method often used? No, it was not, but the DMA controller gave the Genesis an upper hand in certain operations.

I firmly believe that the Wii U will dominate the eighth-generation market. Why, you ask? Simple, Nintendo is becoming their old selves once more, much like the days on the Snes, with immense third-party support. Yes, I believe they're returning to their past days of glory.

And here we agree - Nintendo is indeed (finally) back into the risky game of creating kick-ass hardware that's well-within the specs demand of its times.